Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Adjournment (Easter)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Mr. Harry Barnes: On Tuesday 23 March, The Mirror ran an exclusive story on Anita Froggatt, a constituent of mine from North Wingfield, who had had a healthy breast removed. She had been wrongly identified as a cancer victim at the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal hospital, where a mix-up had occurred with the slides. On reading the report in The Mirror, I immediately contacted Avril Toland, the unit manager at the hospital. I was informed that a consultant pathologist had been suspended. There had been a similar case the previous year, involving the same consultant pathologist, which had resulted in an internal investigation. Obviously, the results and recommendations of the investigation and the procedures that were set in motion were inadequate to deal with the problem.
The second person involved is Kuldip Sumal, who is a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The hospital serves my constituency as well as those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover.
I then contacted the office of the Secretary of State for Health and Anita's solicitor, Phil Bowen. I talked to Anita, who was at the solicitor's when I called. Also, I raised the matter on a point of order with you, Madam Speaker, and discussed the case that evening with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, whose concern is revealed in an answer to a parliamentary question that I tabled on 23 March and to which I received an answer yesterday.
I asked my right hon. Friend what reports he had received on errors made by the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal hospital in diagnosing breast cancer and if he would make a statement. The reply states:
We are aware of the two terrible cases which have been the subject of media attention and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to both women to express his feelings of deep regret that they have had such an awful experience.
We have asked the regional director of public health in Trent to commission a comprehensive review of the circumstances to ensure that everything possible is done to avoid this happening again. The review team will include an expert nominated by the Royal College of Pathologists. My right hon. Friend will be kept informed of progress and will be fully appraised of the conclusions and recommendations of the review team, which will be published."—[Official Report, 30 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 647.]

A serious matter of confidence is involved—the shattered confidence of my constituent and women's confidence in breast cancer screening and treatment in general. Anita is reported in The Mirror as saying:
It's horrific. How can I come to terms with this? My life is ruined. I've been to hell and back for nothing … Now I look at my wedding picture and want to turn the clock back. I was so confident and happy.
She has the close support of a loving family, including her husband Paul and 10 year-old son Dane, but she, and they, need help to rebuild the confidence that she once had. Kuldip Sumal has been through the same shattering experiences, as did Margaret Nicoll in 1992 at the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley, Renfrewshire.
Women in general need their confidence in breast cancer screening and treatment restored. The importance of screening was shown by statistics from the Department of Health in evidence to the Select Committee on Health in 1995. About 13,000 women die of breast cancer each year in England alone. Cases of breast cancer increased by 22 per cent. in England and Wales between 1979 and 1988. The United Kingdom is 22 out of a list of 23 nations for breast cancer mortality—23 being the nation with the highest mortality. The 1995 Select Committee report, "Breast Cancer Services", does not deal with the problem that I am raising, but contains evidence from the Radiotherapy Action Group Exposure—RAGE—on women who have suffered injury from radiotherapy treatment following breast cancer.
To ensure that such errors never happen again, we need not merely another internal inquiry at the royal hospital, but the wider inquiry detailed by the Secretary of State. Furthermore, that inquiry should go beyond the situation at that hospital. Throughout the national health service we want the best practice that operates in any trust hospital. We want that best practice established in north Derbyshire so that these problems do not occur again.
We also need a full examination of all the royal hospital's breast cancer slides because many other women in the area are worried about their treatment, or lack of treatment, if the wrong slides have been examined and related to their cases. The slides supervised by the consultant pathologist concerned must be examined as quickly as possible. I also hope that the Health Committee will revisit the 1995 investigation to cover the problems that have been revealed at the hospital. In its examination, it would find a visit to the hospital valuable.
Breast cancer screening is important. Women need to be encouraged to use the service, but to use it they need to have utter confidence in it. That confidence has been shattered in this case, especially in north Derbyshire. The sooner that the investigations take place and best practice is adopted, the better for everyone concerned.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: There are three reasons why we should not rush off to our Easter break before considering them. First, before we get back, hedges all over the country will have grown by at least an inch or two if they are leylandii hedges. The matter may cause amusement when a hedge grows from 8 ft to 8 ft 2 in, but when it is from 30 ft to 30 ft 2 in many people suffer distress.
The organisation Hedgeline already has 2,200 members. The problem is growing as fast as the hedges. One in five trees planted in England is a leylandii or


something very like it. We all understand that when one moves into a new plot, it is nice to get some greenery as fast as possible, but many people, either because they are genuinely malevolent or paranoid about being overlooked, plant such trees as close as they can to their boundary, regardless of the damage that it causes to their neighbours. That can mean the removal of a view, not from the ground floor but from the first and second floors of people's houses.
The problem should be controlled. That is why I had hoped to bring in a Bill, but the Government not only objected to it but are in disarray. They had a special unit examine the problem for about six months. They say that they have no idea how to deal with it, but when presented with a Bill that they could have amended as much as they liked in Committee, they refused to allow it even to proceed that far, which is a shame.

Mr. David Maclean: They cannot see the wood for the trees.

Mr. Rowe: My right hon. Friend is right. It is a serious matter that we should consider. It is going to get a great deal worse. I was somewhat dismayed by my meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). At the start, he said that he was worried about my Bill because an appeal mechanism against a local authority decision that a hedge was causing a nuisance to neighbours would mean that he would have to set up an entire department to deal with appeals because there would be so many. However, at the end he said, "I am not at all sure Andrew that you are not exaggerating this matter. It doesn't seem to me that it is as big as you think." One cannot have it both ways unless one is new Labour.
The second reason that we should not adjourn is that this is a proper moment to note on the Floor what many hon. Members on both sides of the House have already recognised in receptions and other meetings: the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children campaign to abolish cruelty to children. I acknowledge a vested interest in that I am proud to be a trustee of that organisation.
Before we return from the Easter break, at least one child under five in this country will have died following abuse and neglect. One child under five dies every week of abuse and neglect and 150,000 children are physically abused each year. Many of my colleagues who heard him speak will have been outraged when Jim Harding, the director of the NSPCC, told us that 30 years ago, one of his first cases involved a baby the end of whose little fingers had been cut off with nail scissors. Such awful cruelty not only continues but may even be on the increase. It is difficult to be sure, because, fortunately, abuse is becoming more commonly reported.
With 11 per cent. of adults saying that they were sexually abused as children and an estimated 450,000 children being bullied at school, it is appropriate that the NSPCC should have launched the largest campaign this century by a non-governmental organisation. It is comparable only to the anti-slavery campaign of Wilberforce and his friends. When they set out, the public

did not believe that anything could be done about slavery or the slave trade. They were derided for even thinking that something could be done. The same is true now. However much they want the get rid of cruelty to children, a great many people believe that it is pie in the sky to imagine that a campaign can abolish it.
No one suggests that we will get rid of every incident of cruelty to children, but just as Wilberforce and his friends abolished slavery in this country, ended the slave trade and impacted enormously on slavery worldwide, so I believe that the NSPCC campaign against cruelty can be expected to have a similar impact. In 50 years' time, this country will be a kinder place for children to grow up in, and it will be much easier for children to report abuse when they are in misery.
A telling reason why children do not report cruelty is that they believe that the public services will break up their family. However bad life is for them in it, they know that it is all that they have got. If brothers and sisters are going to be separated by social services, what else have they got? This is an insensitivity in our public life that we must tackle. The ever more clamant new thrust towards listening to children is the beginning of wisdom.
I am glad to remind the House that I am chairman of a steering group of all parties and many NGOs that is trying to establish for 2000 the first sitting of a United Kingdom youth parliament. That will be part of listening to young people and allowing their voices to be heard on matters on which the Government do not listen to them. The Government introduce legislation on literacy hours, curfews or changing the nature of support for young people at universities, but they never ask young people what they think. It is time that they did.
The last reason why we should not adjourn is that in the great debate on the Metropolitan police and the Lawrence report, I did not hear anyone wonder whether we ask the police to do too much. This is an important issue. We expect our police to do all sorts of things. We expect them to look after lost property, to register every insurance claim and to police crowds going to football matches or demonstrations. Sometimes reluctantly, we expect them to enforce the law on dangerous drivers. We expect them to act as human traffic lights when the computer systems break down. When the social services are closed, the citizens advice bureau is shut, and the doctor's surgery has gone to bed, we expect them to pick up confused old women with compassion and sympathy. We expect them to find places for people with nowhere to sleep. We expect all that from a group of people who are also expected to respond to crime, assault and violence effectively, efficiently and with power.
Those qualities are difficult to find in one group of people. The Government need to consider carefully whether the young men and women who are brought into the Metropolitan or other police forces are not expected to have too wide a range of qualities because the range of jobs that they do is so diverse.
To take one small example, Ministers might consider carefully whether when I lose my wallet or credit card I should have to get a number from the police before the insurance company will pay attention to my claim. That is surely one of many tasks that could be outsourced to an organisation that would keep in touch with the police. I hope that Ministers will consider the three matters that I have raised before we adjourn.

Mr. Alan Hurst: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise a matter of concern to my constituents in the town of Witham who are residents of Bridge Learning Difficulties hospital. It was built in Victorian times, not as a hospital but as a workhouse and asylum. It has all the hallmarks of such a building. It is forbidding and depressing in character. It has been used for many years for people with learning difficulties. Although the hospital was originally on the edge of the town, close, as the name suggests, to the bridge across the river, it is now closer to the heart of the town.
An important factor for those with learning difficulties is that they are in the community. A warm regard and affection has grown up between those who live in the hospital and the residents of the town of Witham. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will not be surprised that there are now proposals to close that hospital and move the residents out into the community. Progress has already been made towards reaching that objective. Like many buildings erected in former times, the hospital has a considerable area of land attached to it. A large part of the land has already been sold for residential housing development. It is expected that if the balance is sold, that too will be used for residential housing. The consequences of that will be that those who have lived in the hospital—some of them effectively for all their life and many of them for many years—will be scattered away from their friends and in some cases from their families, into circumstances that will be alien to them.
I have been approached on a number of occasions by a group called the Friends of Bridge Hospital, made up of the parents of the children who are residents. When I say children, I am talking about some people who are in their middle age. Most of them are men and their parents are now in some cases becoming elderly. The children naturally go home to visit their parents at certain times during the year, but I am told that it is touching that when they leave the hospital they want their parents to assure them that they will be going back there after their holiday. That is because many of them regard the hospital as their home.
I do not defend the layout or structure of the hospital. In many ways, it is an appalling building. Some of the residents are still living in communal wards, with all the humiliation and lack of dignity that that implies. Others have their own private rooms. To their great credit, the hospital authorities have made great strides in making those rooms homes for those who live in them.
I believe that the way forward is not to cling to the ideology of care in the community. That ideology, like the ideologies of eastern Europe, is waning, and we should take a more balanced view. Every ideology, by its nature, imposes a philosophical and intellectual straitjacket on those who practise it, and care in the community has in some ways been as thoughtless as other ideologies. The tendency to care in the community is now beginning to change in other areas. I hope that the New Possibilities NHS trust will begin to consider sheltered community accommodation for people with learning difficulties so that they remain together. They could live in bungalow developments rather like those for our older people, with wardens and medical staff on hand to assist them. In such circumstances, the community would still be there, the residents would still have their relatives close

at hand, they would still be bonded to the place where they had always lived, they would maintain the relationship with the wider community and they could move forward with dignity and reassurance. I hope that it is not too late for that to be achieved.
I know that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), whose constituency is not far from my constituency, has a similar residential home for people with learning difficulties run by the same trust. I know that he shares some of my concerns. I hope that the Minister will say that there is a way forward within which we can gain the benefits of community living, but maintain the dignity of those who spend their lives in the hospital.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I am most grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for calling me so early in the debate. The subject that I want to talk about is one that the journalist Christopher Booker has described as farming's forgotten crisis or, in other words, the plight of small abattoirs and the crisis in the pig industry. I shall explain in a moment why I believe that the House should not adjourn until these matters have been resolved.
I should preface my remarks by declaring an interest. My financial interests in the meat industry are as listed in the register. I am president of the Meat Training Council and of the British Pig Association. Both positions are unremunerated and honorary.
It is certain that Parliament will go into recess today. I invite the Minister to consider the uncertainty that currently faces the small abattoir sector. If the original plans announced by the Government were to go ahead, it would face tomorrow an astronomical increase in the charges that it has to pay for meat inspection. It will not be difficult for right hon. and hon. Members to appreciate the position of any business facing increases of the order of 23 per cent. Bishop's Castle Meat Company in my constituency faces an increase from £4,800 per month to £8,000. That is not untypical. I am told of another slaughterman in Devon, John Coles, who currently pays less than £300 per month but faces the prospect of charges increasing to £3,500 per month. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) will acknowledge that. That is an astronomical increase by anyone's reckoning.
It is unfair to expect the industry to continue in uncertainty. Ministers have not said that the charges will not be imposed tomorrow or announced when they will come into effect.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my hon. Friend concede that those businesses will not continue to trade? They will go out of business. There is no way in which they can take the costs. Many butchers in my constituency who butcher their own meat are in a similar position. If the proposals go forward, they will go out of business. Yet they provide an excellent service to the local community.

Mr. Gill: My hon. Friend is right. I have a lifelong experience of the meat industry, and I understand the economics of running abattoirs, both large and small. I know that the small abattoirs simply will not be able to bear the astronomical costs that are supposed to kick in from tomorrow. The effect on other parts of our economy will be serious. The House will recognise that many small


abattoirs are located in rural areas and provide vital wealth creation and employment prospects. They also provide an outlet for many livestock farmers, especially small farmers, who may produce a specialist product for a niche market and will be deprived of a slaughter point.
As my hon. Friend appreciates, when such a farmer cannot get his specialist product slaughtered in a small abattoir, where there is total traceability, a whole raft of economic activity is lost. We must bear it in mind that a large abattoir is not interested in doing the job. It is extremely serious that small abattoirs are closing at a time when people in the countryside are desperate to find ways of diversifying. There will also be serious implications for the welfare of animals which will have to travel much further to the point of slaughter.
On 17 March, I accompanied a small deputation of people who are involved in that sector of the meat industry to meet the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister of State at the Ministry. The deputation included representatives of the Humane Slaughter Association, who are especially interested in welfare matters, the National Federation of Meat and Food Traders, which represents small butchers, whose work will be handicapped if small abattoirs are closed, and the chief executive of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, who is concerned about the niche marketing that his members have established using small abattoirs.
I must give credit where it is due. It is only fair to say that the Ministers were most attentive to our case and they acknowledged the seriousness of the situation. They confessed that the proposed increase in charges will be more than many sections of the trade can bear. They acknowledged that some of the small abattoirs will have to close—as my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) pointed out. They also stated that Government policy was that animals should be slaughtered as near as possible to the farm. They assured us that they were considering all possible ways of reducing the overheads of the Meat Hygiene Service and that they were doing their level best to minimise the cost increases due to take effect next month.
Ministers are on the horns of a dilemma; on one hand, they are under enormous pressure from the European Union to implement fully the meat inspection directive, but on the other, they know that if they do so, scores of small abattoirs will close and there will be a knock-on effect for other small businesses.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on setting up the meeting to which he referred. He was kind enough to invite me and a Labour Member, which made it an all-party occasion. Does he recall that, at that meeting, the Ministers acknowledged that the meat inspections directive did not seem to be biting equally across Europe? One of the most ludicrous matters is that there seems to be a surplus of inspecting veterinary staff in most continental countries, to which we have to apply so that there are enough vets to carry out inspections in this country. There seems to be a trade imbalance in vets.

Mr. Gill: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. In this country, inspection has to be carried out by fully

qualified veterinary surgeons, but we are led to believe that in other countries it is carried out by auxiliary vets who are trained to a much lower standard. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, in this country we do not know what the charging regime is in other countries. Presumably, if we did know, the Minister would have answered the question that I tabled on 11 March. I also received a very patchy answer to an earlier question on the level of supervision and the implementation of the regulations in other countries. The matter creates difficulties for Ministers because they cannot say that we are doing as much, more than, or the same as other countries; we do not have the information. That is a powerful argument for a stay of execution on the new charges, unless and until it can be established that other countries throughout the EU are operating the same scale of charges on the same level of supervision and inspections.
Four years ago, the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) and I tabled an early-day motion criticising the fresh meat hygiene and inspection regulations, especially the short notice with which they were being introduced. It is somewhat ironic that in the same week, on 13 March 1995, the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, tabled early-day motion 778,
praying that the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 … be annulled.
Bearing that in mind, I would have thought that the Prime Minister might influence Agriculture Ministers to stay their hand until the situation is clearer and some way had been found to reduce the charges from the amount proposed.
In an earnest attempt to help, I have suggested to the Minister that the new charges should not be implemented in the United Kingdom until there has been a technical review of the whole question of meat inspection and charging for meat inspection throughout the EU. I am conscious that other countries, such as the United States of America, Australia or New Zealand, have adopted an entirely different method in which inspection and charging are related to the degree of risk, rather than the cumbersome and expensive method being imposed by the EU.
Members of the pig industry have made a number of suggestions to the Government and, on their behalf, I want to reinforce their plea that the Government should implement the recommendations of the recent report into the pig industry by the Select Committee on Agriculture. Greater efforts should be made to ensure that all pigmeat coming into this country from other countries is labelled so that the consumer can exercise an informed choice. The industry would also appreciate any influence that the Government can exert on Departments and on local authorities to ensure that they source their pigmeat from UK-produced pigs.

Mr. Tom Cox: I want to raise the subject of Kashmir. I chair the all-party group on Pakistan in this House. As we all know, Kashmir is thousands of miles away from the United Kingdom, but it is not a country with which we have no involvement. When one looks back over the events of the past 50 years, one recalls the conflicts and tensions that existed—sadly, they still exist—between India and Pakistan. Wars have taken place between those two countries and one of the issues has always been the Indian occupation of Jammu Kashmir.
Sadly, last summer we saw the testing of nuclear weapons in the region; first, by India and then by Pakistan. According to the spokespeople of those two countries, one of principal reasons for that testing was the continuing conflict in Kashmir. One hears repeatedly from the Government of Pakistan—whichever party is in power—that the issue must be resolved to bring peace to that region and to improve relationships between India and Pakistan. I am sure that all Members of the House would wish to see that.
India and Pakistan are members of the Commonwealth and have close links with the United Kingdom. The last viceroy of India, Earl Mountbatten, said that the issue of Kashmir must be resolved. Sadly, it has not been and that is why the conflict continues. We know that there are thousands of Indian troops occupying part of Jammu Kashmir and that Pakistan has troops and equipment alongside Azad Kashmir. The conflict creates many problems for both India and Pakistan and tension between the two countries. The enormous military build-up in both countries, which was highlighted by last year's testing of nuclear weapons, and the huge financial cost of that military build-up prevents the development of other aspects of the two countries' economies and social structures.
In addition to all those problems, there is the on-going suffering and denial of human rights to the people of occupied Kashmir who live under the control of the Indian security forces. Without doubt, the country is occupied against the will of its people—and as we have seen many times, when a country is occupied, its people will fight for its freedom, and that is what has been happening for many years in occupied Kashmir. That has led to oppression of the people by the Indian security forces: there is vivid documentation of killings, torture, rape of women and other measures taken against the people of occupied Kashmir. It is now estimated that India has 600,000 troops in occupied Kashmir. Human rights groups have repeatedly reported the brutality of the Indian army toward the people of Jammu Kashmir.
There have been many United Nations resolutions calling for India and Pakistan to enter into discussions to resolve the conflict. The attitude of Pakistan has been made clear by successive Governments: they want such discussions to take place, with the firm commitment that the people of Kashmir must have a role in such discussions. Regrettably, India has said that that request is unacceptable, that the area of Kashmir now occupied is part of India, and that the occupation will continue. Pakistan—and, I am sure, the whole world—wants the people of Kashmir to be able to involve themselves in a constructive debate that will end the conflict and the tension between India and Pakistan.
As I said, India and Pakistan are Commonwealth countries, as is the United Kingdom, and our links to them are strong and undoubtedly respected. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has shown a clear commitment to attempting to bring about discussions between India and Pakistan, but it must be said that the Indian response to my right hon. Friend's involvement has been extremely unhelpful. I am pleased to say that, recently, a meeting took place between the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan. Such dialogue gives our country an opportunity to offer to play a role in discussions which, although complex and difficult, might succeed if the will is there.
Recently, President Mandela of South Africa said:
All of us remain concerned that the issue of Jammu Kashmir should be solved through peaceful negotiation and should be willing to lend all the strength we have to the resolution of this matter.
I am certain that that is the wish of many hon. Members, and it is what the Government of Pakistan and the people of Kashmir certainly want. A week ago, a major military parade took place in Islamabad, and President Rafiq Tarar of Pakistan said that the settlement of the Kashmir dispute was the only guarantee for peace in the region. We, as a fellow Commonwealth country, have a definite role to play. In September this year, the annual Commonwealth conference is to take place in Port of Spain, Trinidad, and I hope that we will work to ensure that Kashmir is on the agenda. We could seek the involvement of a fellow Commonwealth country to act as co-ordinator between India and Pakistan—I refer back to President Mandela's remarks.
The whole House acknowledges that, in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, we have a person who is held in the highest regard and who, as he is currently demonstrating, has a great personal commitment to the human rights of men and women. I do not doubt that, as he has done in Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend could play a major role in bringing India and Pakistan together in discussions to resolve the continuing tragedy. That has to be done, first, for the sake of its people, so that they can lead the sort of life that they want for themselves; and, secondly, to reduce the tension and danger that the unresolved conflict has caused and continues to cause in that region of the world. I believe that the UK can play such a role, and I look to the Government to become involved in resolving the issue.

Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Easter recess, there are several matters that I believe we should debate. As there are many hon. Members waiting to speak, I shall run though the issues rapidly and not expect the Minister to comment on more than two.
I agree with everything the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) had to say, until he mentioned the leader of the Labour party—but never mind. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) would expect me to mention the Palace theatre, Westcliff. I have to report that, unfortunately, it closed three weeks ago, but two weeks ago I presented a petition signed by 6,000 people and I am delighted to tell the House that the new chairman of the Eastern arts board has promised to be at the first performance of the Christmas pantomime, which is to open in November. However, I expect Her Majesty's Government to give the Eastern arts board decent funding, so that the Palace theatre can continue as a producing theatre.

Mr. Hurst: As a constituent of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), I hope he will accept what I have to say. Does he agree that the Eastern arts board has, for many years, discriminated in favour of the Mercury theatre, Colchester and severely against the Palace theatre, Southend in matters of grant funding? It is not solely a question of the amount of funding the board has at its disposal, but of how it distributes it.

Mr. Amess: I am delighted to have given way to the hon. Gentleman. I do not want any discord between me


and the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell)—actually, I would not really mind if there was such discord. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) is quite right about the unfair level of funding: our receiving only £48,000 is an utter disgrace, and if we had had parity with Watford, Ipswich and Colchester, the lights would not be out on the Palace theatre, Westcliff.
In my time as a Member of Parliament, I have never heard any hon. Member say anything original about crime—we all have crime in our constituencies. I realise that the Home Secretary—a former Essex lad—does not accept this point, but it is an utter disgrace that my area is to suffer underfunding after the latest announcements, because the increase of only 1.7 per cent. does not keep pace with inflation. Civilians now have to do jobs that policemen did previously, and that is not good enough. Southend has lost its four police horses and that is a disgrace.
Will the Minister find out what is meant by the response that is given whenever we submit our bid for closed circuit television funding? We are told that our bid is not good enough. Visitors to Southend will see the graffiti that is spoiling our sea front. It too is an utter disgrace. We cannot rely on Southend's struggling businesses to fund CCTV projects: we need specific funding. If cameras are installed by Chalkwell station and along Marine parade, I am sure that we will capture on film those disgusting individuals who think it is a good laugh to paint graffiti everywhere—including on the underground. Southend will open for the summer season next month, and I hope that the Minister will explain before then why our bid is not good enough.
On roads, Southend has a Liberal-Labour controlled council and the Government have cut local roads funding by £600,000. The council understands that, while the Government are not supporting extensive new road building projects—which I think is absolutely barmy—they will make additional funds available for the maintenance of existing highway infrastructure.
I do not mind the Government's having it in for me as an individual, but it is a bit tough when they have it in for Southend. Why has Southend suffered that funding cut? All other areas in the eastern region have had funding increases, but we have had a 12 per cent. reduction. When the Queen visited my constituency two weeks ago and travelled down Southbourne grove and Westbourne grove, she saw at first hand—despite her outriders—the traffic congestion in Southend, West. The Al27 has been improved somewhat, but the A13 certainly has not.
The Deputy Prime Minister suggested in the education White Paper that parents should walk their children to school. The right hon. Gentleman should visit Southend, West where parental choice has vanished as a result of the Government's decision to reduce class sizes to 30 and below this September. It is an absolute disgrace. I draw the Minister's attention to what has happened to voluntary aided schools. There will be parental choice in Southend, West only if Our Lady of Lourdes school, which a number of my children attend, is allowed to expand.
I do not wish to cause trouble in the House, but two Labour Members of Parliament who represent constituencies in the London borough of Havering and I are seeking a meeting with the Minister to discuss the

matter. I have a copy of all the relevant correspondence. We have not been able to secure that meeting and the House goes into recess for Easter tomorrow. The situation is completely unsatisfactory. The diocese of Brentwood has not received a clear steer from the Government. It is not a matter simply for the trustees, because Our Lady of Lourdes school is being forced to expand as a result of Government initiatives that clearly have not been thought through properly. It is all very well telling schools what to do in key stage 1, but that impacts on key stage 2. Parents in Southend, West must walk all over my constituency or travel half a mile or two miles because the sibling rule no longer applies to the allocation of school places. It is absolute chaos.
I hope to be lucky in the ballot and to initiate an Adjournment debate about assisted area status for Southend, West. However, perhaps the Minister will have a word in advance with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about regional selective assistance for my area. Fourteen companies in Southend wish to benefit from that initiative, which offers particular assistance to manufacturing industry. Unemployment in Southend is approximately one and half times the national average and about twice the average for the east of England. Unemployment in Southend is 2 per cent. higher than in Luton and is about the same as in Brighton and Hove. Total employment in Southend over the next decade has been forecast to decline by 6.8 per cent. I hope that the Minister will do what he can to persuade the Department of Trade and Industry to grant the area regional selective assistance.
I am sick to death of writing to the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. Under this Government, we read about new policies in the newspapers. An article in The Times of 25 March entitled "Swifter justice for victims of bad lawyers" stated:
Ombudsman will be given power to speed up complaints process".
I had absolute proof that a particular solicitor was guilty of entrapment—I will not detain the House by recounting the details. The case went before the Solicitors Complaints Bureau three times and the ombudsman found in favour of the complainant three times. Yet the Solicitors Complaints Bureau threw out the case.
A few weeks ago, hon. Members were invited to a reception in this place. We were told that our constituents would be able to call a dedicated telephone line and have their legal matters dealt with immediately. However, there is a backlog of 32,000 calls at present, and it is obvious that Government have not funded the service properly. I am not having a dig at any solicitors who are in the Chamber this morning—[Interruption.] Perhaps I am having a gentle dig at them. It is unfair that the adjudication panels should contain a majority of three or five solicitors.
My final point is about modernisation of the House of Commons. I do not care where we are on life's journey: everyone's life is of equal value. I am sick of all the garbage that we are being fed about modernisation. I think the House is being treated with contempt. We all know what is happening on the Floor of the House—which is why I have had to raise seven items—

Sir Patrick Cormack: Eight.

Mr. Amess: That is why I have been forced to raise eight items this morning. According to the report of the Select Committee on Modernisation, hon. Members will soon conduct debates in the Grand Committee room.
The so-called experiment on Thursday mornings is not working. I am a member of the Select Committee on Health and my colleagues are suffering withdrawal symptoms when I must attend debates in the House on Thursday mornings. They believe that the Committee process is weakened because I am not there to question witnesses, and the Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), is finding it impossible to rearrange meeting times. I think that the whole modernisation process is absolute garbage. Our constitution is being destroyed, and the wonderful opportunity we have to raise issues for three hours on Wednesday mornings is more valuable than the time we spend debating many other matters in the House.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I am delighted to participate in the Adjournment debate this morning. I assure the Minister that I have only one issue that requires his attention: the closure of a printing works in my constituency.
The works has been operating for 50 years and used to be known as Carlisle Web Offset. It had some problems in the 1960s, and was saved by a then Member of Parliament, Robert Maxwell—some hon. Members may remember him. All sorts of things have been said about Mr. Maxwell, but the reality is that he saved workers' jobs in my constituency and the company has been viable ever since. It became part of the British Publishing Company and was later subject to a management takeover.
Recent events, however, have proved rather disturbing. On 13 March last year, Richard Warner from Investcorp wrote to me to say that the company was making a bid for the British Publishing Company, to which the printing works in my constituency belongs. He asked me whether I would support the bid in his dealings with the Office of Fair Trading. I was not happy about it at the time and I suggested that we should meet to discuss the issue.
I met Mr. Warner in the House on 24 March last year, when he gave me assurances about job security at the Carlisle plant and future investment in the plant, which had old equipment and needed modernisation, as printing works regularly do these days. He asked me again if I would support his bid to the Office of Fair Trading. I declined to do so but assured him that I would not oppose the bid.
On 4 April, the Financial Times carried an article about Investcorp's promises to the Office of Fair Trading. It quoted Mr. Richard Warner as saying that there would be no more than 350 redundancies over the next four years and no more than 140 redundancies in the first year. On 16 April, The Independent carried a similar story saying that the only redundancies would be due to the merger of the two headquarters. I have a copy of a press release from Mr. Warner in which he gave assurances that there would be no manufacturing job losses if the takeover went ahead.
On 26 February this year, the work force received an ultimatum from the managing director of Polestar, which is a subsidiary company of Investcorp and runs the printing works in this country. The ultimatum was that the plant would close unless there was 100 per cent. acceptance by the work force of a deal that meant that there would be no future investment in the plant;

52 redundancies, leaving a work force of 169; an immediate pay reduction of 10 per cent., and a reduction in overtime rates. The company wanted the answer within a week.
To summarise, the workers were told that they had to increase productivity by 25 per cent. and take a pay cut of 10 per cent., and if they did not agree within seven days, the plant would close. The management knew that the proposals would be totally unacceptable, and the entire work force rejected it. Not one member of the work force could bring himself to vote for those proposals.
The first that I knew about that was when I was contacted by the local media—in stark contrast to the lobbying that was done when the company wanted my support for its bid to the Office of Fair Trading.
I understand that the Department of Trade and Industry approved the bid last April, but because of the serious situation at the factory, I agreed to meet a member of Polestar's senior management, Mr. Tony Rudston, at his office last week to try to negotiate a rescue package. I was told that there was no chance of the decision being reversed. He said that the printing work done at the Carlisle factory was being sent to other Polestar plants in the UK and that the redundancy package offered to the work force in Carlisle was considerably less than that offered to the workers at a similar factory in Milton Keynes which had been closed. Mr. Rudston said that that was because the Milton Keynes work force were not to blame for the redundancies.
I know that the Graphical, Paper and Media Union was anxious to negotiate with Polestar to try to save the plant, but Mr. Tony Rudston refused to negotiate. I understand that he is difficult in negotiations and that the union finds him difficult to work with. Having met him, I can understand the union's problems.
I raise this matter in the House to put on record what has happened in my constituency because of Investcorp. That is not a British company; it is an asset-stripping company and its money comes from Bahrain. Investcorp lied to me, to the work force and, I suspect, to the DTI and the Office of Fair Trading. If that is the case and the Government were misinformed, we need to know whether there is any possibility of the Government taking legal action against the company to find out if any redress can be made. The company has robbed my constituents of their livelihood and is cheating them on their redundancy money.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I think that the House will have great difficulty adjourning at all. I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and on the problem of hedges, about which I have had any number of letters. I have also had a great deal of correspondence on the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill).
I want, however, to follow the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). Yesterday, we had yet another glossy document full of soundbites and the language of the business school. Frankly, its announcement was a moment of hilarity.


There were references to "modernising government", "developing", "involving", "listening", "supporting", "helping" and "engaging". The Prime Minister said:
The new issues are the right issues: modernising government, better government, getting government right",
and he talked of joined-up government. The statement was an all-time low for this Government.
I say that because I have a specific constituency concern that preoccupies not only me, but almost every Member of Parliament in the south, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), the hon. Members representing Portsmouth, Southampton and the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand). That concern is the Government's absolute refusal to take any responsibility for the A3 at Hindhead. In the past 18 months, I have communicated 26 times with the Government on that subject. Every response is an exercise in Sir Humphrey techniques.
Initially, we had every hope that the A3 scheme would be approved as part of the trunk roads review. The A3 at Hindhead is the most appalling spot on that road; it is the only single carriageway stretch. The A3 is a strategic route on its way to Portsmouth and the continent. A modern country needs a modern transport system. I am sure that the Government would endorse that language. They have refused to give a straight answer on this issue.
The Government's transparent stalling device was to announce a consultation exercise on whether tolls would have a part to play. No Government will ever approve tolls at Hindhead because they would lead to rat-running, and that problem is already destroying villages. In December, I wrote to the Minister of Transport and asked specific questions, and I received the following reply:
Government Offices will shortly be consulting the Regional Planning Conferences … on the specific terms of reference for each study.
They will then discuss among themselves the priorities for the studies. That is Sir Humphrey language, and it is buck-passing. I had asked the Minister of Transport what the timetable for that consultation process is, who is responsible and when he will visit Hindhead. For the past three months, I have been unable to discover the answers to those questions.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office to give a categoric assurance that his Government do not use ministerial visits and the receipt of delegations as a form of patronage. Do they use them to reward their Back Benchers for good behaviour, as it is widely said they do? It is unacceptable for Members of Parliament, who have been misled by all the undertakings given during the trunk roads review, to be unable to secure a visit from a Minister concerning a scheme as serious as that as the A3 at Hindhead.
With great difficulty I managed to get a delegation to the former Transport Minister, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), but only by stressing the fact that I was a Privy Councillor—when we were in government, we would never have turned down a delegation led by a Privy Councillor. However, almost all my colleagues say that they cannot get access to Ministers.
The Government proclaim the importance of modern, joined-up government, but what about accountability? Ministers are responsible for the trunk roads scheme and for the fact that motorists are now charged £33 billion to support the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although only one sixth of that sum is ploughed back into road schemes. If the Government are not prepared to act, they should at least be prepared to tell those concerned directly and straightforwardly. It is not good enough that Members of Parliament should be passed from pillar to post.
We now have the Government office for the south-east, the regional planning conferences and the Highways Agency. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire and I have had more embarrassing meetings with some of these authorities than at any time in our parliamentary careers. The individuals involved simply look embarrassed, shuffle their papers and say, "These are political decisions", or, "These are ministerial decisions." The personnel change and, on occasion, a different agency will be said to be responsible. That is not satisfactory in terms of ministerial accountability.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to point out to his colleagues that if the Minister for Roads and Road Safety is placed in the Lords and is a former general secretary of the Labour party, he is not someone with whom many Opposition Members have natural contact. I seek information about the timetable, the individual responsible and when the Minister will visit.
There have been delegations, petitions and Adjournment debates, and we have contributed fully to all the consultation exercises, but that is not enough. The Minister needs to come to see the A3 at Hindhead for himself. Only in that way can I be sure that he is fully aware of the problem and understands why there is such great concern.
The A3 at Hindhead is crucial to the economic development of Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight. The Confederation of British Industry has made that clear, as has the trade union movement. The part of the A3 in question lies in some of the most internationally significant landscape in this country. It is magnificent National Trust land, which is why some years ago a tunnel was announced as approved Government policy. This part of the A3 is destroying beautiful villages throughout the area.
I am sure that the Minister is aware of the extent to which the shire counties were treated vindictively in their funding settlements. Their settlements are such that they are having great difficulty maintaining health, transport and social services. The Government's refusal to act at Hindhead means that Hampshire and Surrey are under ever greater pressure to come up with transport packages that will help to mitigate the damage to villages such as Churt, Thursley, Haslemere and Grayswood. This is their number one priority.
This year, I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends have had more letters about transport than any other subject. When my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) recently held an Opposition day debate on road schemes, I and many others without success tried to contribute, such is the interest in this subject.
It will be difficult for the House to adjourn because of the many issues that hon. Members want to raise, but it will be especially difficult if our adjourning involves a


journey through Hindhead. Those who spend their high days and holidays on the Isle of Wight will once again find that it is almost impossible to move.
To summarise, I want specific answers that the Minister may like to put in writing. Please will he help me get answers to questions that I first asked in December? I want to know who is responsible, not the name of the agency. Who is the individual project manager? What is the timetable? When will the Minister visit?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is always a delight to be present for the three-hour Adjournment debate, and it is just the same for the Opposition. It is especially delightful this morning because despite the great philosophical sweep that we sometimes hear from Opposition Members about where they stand on market forces, non-intervention and all the rest, when it comes to constituency cases, all those grand ideas fade away.
We heard first from the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) who wants more money. He blames the new Labour Government for the fact that hedges are growing too high, although I rather suspect that they were growing 18 years ago, too. He wants regulations to control hedges—let it be known that a Tory Member of Parliament asked for more regulations, despite moaning about the other 2,000 for the rest of the year.
We then heard the butcher from the midlands, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). Given that he is anti-Europe and anti-Common Market, although he developed such attitudes long after I did—after the single market, as a matter of fact—it is remarkable that he was asking for harmonisation of abattoir charges within the European Union. I would have thought that, as a purist anti-marketeer, the hon. Gentleman was off message.

Mr. Gill: I take this opportunity to confirm that I am implacably opposed to economic, monetary and political union in Europe. I want that on the record for everyone to see. I was not saying that I wanted harmonisation; I was saying that we should do nothing in this country until we have a level playing field with the rest of Europe.

Mr. Skinner: I thought that a level playing field meant harmonisation—the hon. Gentleman can twist the words as much as he likes, but that is what it sounds like to me. He was followed by another Tory who wanted, among other things, a lot more money. Of course, the same fellow walked through the Lobby in the debates on the Budget, saying that the Labour Government were taxing too heavily. He voted God knows how many times against spending money.
We then heard from the representative from Surrey who also wanted a lot more money, not for just anyone but for Hindhead and her constituency, and for the Isle of Wight where she spends her holidays.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey said that she wanted assistance for Portsmouth and Southampton, but above all she wants a straight answer to a straight question. She wants to avoid evasiveness.

Mr. Skinner: Now that the right hon. Lady can no longer resort to talking about the grand business of

government—she was involved for the best part of 18 years—she has to talk about the blockage in Hindhead. She has raised the issue several times. Had she asked me for advice when we were voting on the Budget, I would have told her: "For God's sake, don't vote against tax increases because you'll need that money for Hindhead." If we sit here long enough, we see and hear all the contradictions.

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman says that if we sit here long enough, we see all the contradictions. Does he accept that I saw the contradiction when he voted to cap Derbyshire county council last year?

Mr. Skinner: As a matter of fact, I feel quite happy about that. We asked for an extra £3.9 million from the Government. Ours was the only county that made it. Because I am a good old-fashioned trade union negotiator, I managed to persuade my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to come up with £2.9 million. I thought, "Get the cash." So everybody in Derbyshire, including the hon. Gentleman's constituents, is deliriously happy that Skinner and his mates—not the hon. Gentleman—decided to get an extra £2.9 million for Derbyshire. To get £2.9 million more than the original settlement is not a bad day's work.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) raised the important issue of breast cancer operations at the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal hospital in the light of a tragedy involving one of my hon. Friend's constituents, who unnecessarily had a breast removed. To compound the tragedy, we now know that there was a recent case of unnecessary breast removal in Bolsover, which apparently was not known about until further investigations took place. It happened a short time ago. That tragedy has now been revealed and we suspect there might be others.
I am calling upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, in his inquiry, to require that the records be examined of all cases of breast cancer over the past 10 years at the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal hospital, with a view to ensuring that there are no more of these tragic cases. This would put the minds of many people at rest.
Secondly, there is the white finger issue and the chronic bronchitis and emphysema settlements. As a good trade union negotiator, I think that we have pulled off £2 billion for the chronic bronchitis and emphysema payments, not £2.9 million, for up to about 100,000 miners. I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a few weeks ago at Question Time to give us a chuck on. I was not too sure whether he understood my language, but 2 billion quid ain't a bad figure.
We have secured another £500 million for the white finger settlement, which will affect another 30,000 claimants. That must be good.
My hon. Friend the Minister knows a bit about this subject and he will understand that the lawyers will be taking a slice of the money. I want him to help me and others to ensure that they do not get their hands on too much of it. The money should go to those who need it, such as retired miners who are coughing up their lungs. Where husbands have died, the widows should receive their entitlements.
Medicals will be taking place, and we do not want to spoil the ship for a hap'orth of tar. Let us not have stories coming out from the coalfields that doctors and other


medical people are telling various claimants who are on the borderline that they will not be getting the money. Let us err on the side of the claimant so that a great achievement, which we worked on for seven years, is not made less good. After seven years of struggle, the Labour Government inherited the problem in January 1998, and they have managed to settle the issue within about 15 months. That is not bad. We do not want some of the doctors and lawyers to spoil what is an extremely good achievement.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will hear many more complaints during this three-hour debate. I am sure also that many of them will be contradictory. However, will he pass on all relevant information to ensure that we can resolve the problem of the breast cancer business at the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal hospital? Will he ensure also that the 2.5 billion quid that is going out to former miners will be paid in full?

Mr. David Maclean: Before the House rises for the summer recess—

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Easter recess.

Mr. Maclean: Yes, the Easter recess. We have a modernising new Government and I am very progressive. I went ahead of my time.
Before we rise for the Easter recess, like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), I have a number of issues to bring to the Minister's attention. Like my hon. Friend, I find this three-hour Adjournment debate to be one of the most important features of our parliamentary calendar. Given the way in which the Government are sidelining, ignoring, bypassing and diminishing the status of the House, this debate, which may be of amusement to those outside the House who do not understand our procedures, is one of the few and vital opportunities that we have to present certain issues to the House.
I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) is no longer in his place. I listened with fascination to his plea that action should be taken against 30 ft leylandii hedges. I can tell Labour Members that, as a deregulator, I do not think that we knew that we needed new Government powers to control these hedges; we merely need to deregulate pesticide legislation to some extent. I can tell the House that I had a springer spaniel who could kill a 30 ft high leylandii hedge within two days of adequate watering. That may be a solution that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals may approve of.
I wish to bring to the attention of the House the effect of the Budget on our constituents. The past week in my constituency was very interesting. The constituents whom I met and the letters in the constituency postbag suggested that people were beginning to fume about the Budget. It seems that only now have people become aware of some of the details, and they do not like them very much. They believed the Chancellor's wonderful spin on Budget day and the gullible news reports on it afterwards. However, the pensioners with savings have now discovered how

they will be fleeced. Married couples have now spotted the Chancellor's rip-off, in that the married couple's allowance ends one year before the tax credit comes in.
Motorists have spotted the extra 17p per gallon of petrol. No wonder our hauliers are planning to register in France when we consider the punitive rates for diesel and vehicle registration that the Chancellor has imposed on them. Every commodity will rise in price as transport costs for British lorries rocket. Alternatively, we shall find that foreign hauliers will take over goods haulage traffic in this country. I am certain that that will be of great benefit to our environment!
My constituency postbag has been inundated with complaints from parents who are concerned that the Government are destroying local playgroups. Of course they are destroying them. Playgroups just do not fit the Government's dogmatic model of council-funded nursery education and their minimum wage proposals. It is rather a fitting memorial to this touchy-feely Government, who assure everyone that they share their pain, that among the first victims of the minimum wage will be young women who are looking after children.
Everyone in my constituency and throughout Cumbria is deeply concerned about roads in the area. We are concerned at the Government's destruction of the roads programme. Roads are essential to us up in Cumbria because an integrated transport network is, and always will be, just a fantasy. If we do not have good motorway links with the M6, the M74, the A66 and the A69, the region's economy will die. I appeal to the Government to press ahead immediately with completion of the so-called Cumberland gap, the last remaining stretch of dual carriageway between the M74 in Scotland and the M6 in England. The project was signed up with private finance initiative funding before the general election. Indeed, the Labour party in Cumbria was boasting that, after the election, it would get the link built faster than the Tories because it could run PFI better than the Tories.

Mr. Martlew: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the previous Government knocked the project out of the roads programme? I was told by a senior member of the Highways Agency that the then Government considered that the road from Carlisle to the Scottish border was going nowhere. It was the right hon. Gentleman's Government who knocked it out of the roads programme.

Mr. Maclean: I entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. That is nonsense. Before the election, the project was signed up with PFI funding. If it was not, there was no point in the local Labour party saying that it would get the road built faster because it could arrange for PFI funding faster than the Tories. The funding agency made it clear that all the contracts were ready to be signed. Such contracts are never signed during an election period. However, what has happened to the project now?
Before the election, when Labour was in opposition, it promised that the Cumberland gap would be completed rapidly after the election. In fact, the project has been in limbo for the past two years. That is nonsensical. Everyone knows that this stretch of road must be built sooner rather than later. The Government should authorise the project to go ahead now. I am not calling for Government funding for it. Instead, I am calling for the PFI and the deal which is on the table to be given the go-ahead.
Almost every week there is a fatal accident on the A66. The accident rate seems to have increased alarmingly in the past few months, and I suspect that it will get worse as traffic volumes increase and the pressures on that road get worse and worse. I argued with the previous Government, of whom I was a member, for dual carriageway along the whole length of the road. I have not changed my argument one iota and I am putting it to the present Government
None of us is asking for the road to be completed immediately. We are not asking for miracles, but there is deep concern in Cumbria that the Government's road strategy does not contain a long-term plan for the road. We would have been satisfied if the Labour Government had said, "We can't build dual carriageway immediately, but, over the next 10 or 15 years, we will pick off the worst stretches and build a bit of dual carriageway here and another bit there. We can't go any faster than the last Tory Government." I could not have criticised the Government because I would not have had a leg to stand on, but that is not what they have done.
The Government seem to have adopted a ploy that my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) has come across on her patch. The ploy for stalling work on the A66 is a safety study. We will, of course, co-operate with the safety study, but we do not need a safety study on the A66 to tell us that the bad stretches at Temple Sowerby and at Warcop are absolutely disastrous. The safety study is being used to kick the issue into the long grass. We need a long-term plan and the Government to say, "Yes, we will continue the slow progress of the last Government. We will continue as we can, picking off bits and building the dual carriageway sections." That is all we are asking for; we have not even got that.
I wish to touch on the deep concern in Cumbria about the continuing collapse of the rural economy. The £120 million announced by the Government for special aid for farmers is nothing compared with the billions being lost by the farming industries. In any case, in the near future, farmers will bear the cost of the cattle movement scheme, the specified risk material costs, the rocketing and out-of-control meat hygiene costs and possibly even a pesticides tax. Added together, those measures entirely wipe out the £120 million special aid package.
Although I am not calling for Government funding for the pig sector, it receives no aid at all. The situation is disastrous: 50 per cent. of our nation's herd could be wiped out by the end of the year, with up to 12,000 jobs being lost and more than £1 billion of pigmeat imports being sucked into this country to replace our home-produced pork and bacon. That foreign pigmeat—you will know this from your constituency experience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, if you could, you would support us in our plea—will be everything that the Government and consumers apparently detest.
That foreign pigmeat will be fed on the BSE bonemeal material, which is banned in this country. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office nodding his head at that. The sows producing the pigs will be kept in stalls and tethers, which were banned on welfare grounds in this country. British pigmeat is the cleanest, most welfare-friendly product in the world, which the Government and the supermarkets apparently all want. In that case, the Government should support it

and take action against inhumanely produced imports, which are killing off our welfare-friendly products. Time is not on the Government's side; they must act now, before it is too late.
I will say nothing about small abattoirs and local butchers. I could not match the eloquence or the knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who spoke earlier.
The Government must also make sure that Milk Marque is not carved up in answer to the pleas of the big dairy companies. I know that the Department of Trade and Industry is looking at a Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on Milk Marque and I appeal to it not to listen to the siren voices of the dairy companies, which wish to destroy it. In European terms, Milk Marque is not large; nor is it a monopoly. If it is carved up, dairy farming in this country will be put back to the bad old days of the 1930s, when even the Milk Marketing Board was not invented. That would be a further tragedy for our hard-pressed rural industries.
My last point on the rural economy is a simple reminder to the House that we still have the ridiculous beef on the bone ban, and the ban on beef exports has still not been lifted. We had a great fanfare announcement from the Government many months ago—it was like yesterday's announcement—that the beef export ban would be lifted and that they had achieved agreement because of their wonderful, cosy relationship with Europe. It is still in place and our beef farmers are no further on, after two years of the Government boasting that they could change things radically—faster than the previous Tory Government—because of their special relationship with Europe. All that that special relationship has brought us is more words, more spin, more glossy booklets and no real action.
I conclude on an issue of major concern for all the people of the United Kingdom, which has a different tone from the other points that I have raised—the wholesale release of terrorists without a single gun or bullet being handed in. When the legislation was rushed through the House, some of us warned the Government and appealed to them not to be so naive; but, of course, nothing must be allowed to stop the so-called peace process, which cannot be questioned. The evil Omagh bombing was swept under the carpet, almost as if it were a slight abberation, rather than a deliberate, cynical act by Sinn Fein-IRA to exact yet more concessions from a British Government who are willing to do anything to keep the peace process going, which is what it really was.
If the killings are all carried out by means other than the explosion of big bombs, they do not seem to be properly reported, in case that slows down the peace process. Some peace process; Sinn Fein-IRA have used it to regroup. After all, they do not have to rearm, do they? The Government have let them keep their weapons.
The figures released by the Northern Ireland Office and quoted in  Hansard, which I have researched during the past few weeks, speak for themselves. These are the terms that the Northern Ireland Office uses:
Casualties as a result of paramilitary style shootings".
There were 24 in 1996 and 72 last year. The Northern Ireland Office refers to
Deaths due to the security situation".—[Official Report, 4 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 697–702.]


There were 14 such deaths in 1996 and 54 last year. It refers also to "Bombing incidents"—14 in 1996 and 117 in 1998. There were 84 "Shooting incidents" in 1996 and 132 in 1998.
That is the record of what the Government have achieved so far in the peace process. The knee-capping and bludgeoning rate is three times what it was, the murder rate is four times what it was, shooting incidents have almost doubled and there are eight times as many bombing incidents. There is not much peace there for the people of Northern Ireland, if I may say so. To add to their misery, the Government have released 248 of some of the worst terrorists and murderers that this country has ever seen—and we have had not a single gun or bullet in return. There will be a return—one in the back from Sinn Fein-IRA.
Last week, we saw the sorry spectacle of the Home Secretary—a man whom I respect—trying to stop the release of three terrorists from prison. That is a bit late from a Government who have already released early 245 pals of those terrorists. What other concessions to terrorism will the Government make this week, or even as we speak? I do not share the belief of some of my hon. Friends that this is the last day on which the House will sit before Easter. The House may not adjourn today and, if circumstances continue to deteriorate in Northern Ireland, I hope that we do not adjourn until we have had a proper discussion on what is happening and full statements from the Government.
It looks to me as though the IRA has been given everything that it has asked for from the Government. It is demanding that the current deadlock, which it has created, should be removed in its favour. Its members have been released from prison, without a single gun being handed in. They are permitted to be elected to a democratic Assembly, without a single gun being handed in. I am very much afraid that, soon, the Government may let them become Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive, without a single gun being handed in.
As we approach Easter Sunday, we will see one group of men, who are responsible for the deaths of thousands, being invited by the Government to sit round the Executive table in Northern Ireland, with a gun in one hand and the equivalent of a Red Box in the other. Some miles away, in Yugoslavia, other evil killers will be bombarded with all the bombs and missiles that we can throw at them. Slobodan Milosevic's big mistake was not employing Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein as his negotiators. If he had done so, perhaps American Senators might have wanted to rush over to keep the peace process going. Then, Milosevic could have continued to commit atrocities and kept his arsenal intact, just like Sinn Fein-IRA.
As a former Territorial Army officer, I totally and utterly support our armed forces whenever they are engaged in the service of this country. They always do their duty unquestioningly, and I give them my full support for the difficult task that they face in the Balkans.
The Government have adopted a high moral tone over Yugoslavia. As Easter approaches, I am reminded that their pronouncements on Milosevic sound like the denunciations of Christ by Caiaphas, the high priest, while their behaviour with Sinn Fein-IRA reminds one of

Pontius Pilate washing his hands. Perhaps the only accurate description can be found in the words of Jesus himself:
Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.

Ms Jenny Jones: A recent article in The Observer described my home town of Wolverhampton as one of the country's greenest and cleanest cities. An analysis of the Government's statistics on nitrogen dioxide air pollution has shown that my constituents can breathe cleaner air than the residents of Mayfair, Kensington and Knightsbridge, as well as many other towns and cities in this country.
The newspaper did get one thing wrong; Wolverhampton is not a city—yet. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, the council is bidding for city status, but he can rest assured that I am not asking him to leap to the Dispatch Box to say that Wolverhampton is to be granted city status—although we hope that that takes place.
I wish to refer to the importance of urban forestry and the threat that it faces. Wolverhampton's air quality is due to a variety of factors, one of which is the large number of mature street trees in the town. We have more than 13,000 trees lining the main highways—we have more trees by our highways than in our major parks—most of which were planted at the turn of the century.
The importance of mature trees in our towns and cities goes beyond their aesthetic beauty. We now know that they filter air pollution, counter the impact of rain storms and reduce the risk of flooding, increase biodiversity and aid economic regeneration. However, we know that they must be looked after and carefully managed. Currently, the responsibility lies with local authorities. The experience of conscientious local authorities, such as Wolverhampton council, has shown that that task can no longer be left to them; there is a role for central Government.
The greatest threat to mature street trees is open-cut trenching by utility and cabling companies. Any Member of Parliament whose constituency has experienced extensive large-scale cabling knows the damage that that can cause to trees. Open-cut trenching—particularly by machinery—can damage tree roots, and leaves trees susceptible to drought, pollution, pest disease and instability. As it can take up to five years for a 100-year-old broad-leaf tree to die, the consequences of open-cut trenching are not immediately obvious. Wolverhampton council has calculated that open-cut trenching is responsible for 75 per cent. of the loss of mature street trees.
Utility companies are aware of the problem. In April 1995, the national joint utilities group introduced guidelines for working near mature street trees. However, the guidelines are voluntary. They do not carry the same obligations on utility companies that tree preservation orders place on individuals.
Some utility companies take their responsibilities seriously; others do not. The practice of paying contractors what is effectively a piece rate on the length of run that is excavated encourages careless open-cut trenching, which does the most damage to tree roots. Reducing the number of inspections on contractors' workings means that there is less effective monitoring. The number of times a highway is opened up by utilities increases the chances of damage.
One of my constituents is Professor Chris Baines, a well-known environmentalist. He lives in one of my constituency's most beautiful roads, which is characterised by its 100-year-old broad-leaf trees. He told me that, last year, the entire length of the road was opened up five times by different utility companies, all by open-cut trenching. Frankly, it will be a miracle if those trees are still there in 10 years' time.
There is one utility company known to me that takes its responsibilities seriously. Last year, Midlands Electricity—noticing that I had tabled questions on the subject—invited me to its headquarters in the black country to see the development that it had made in trenchless technology.
Midlands Electricity now has a policy of avoiding open-cut trenching whenever possible—partly to reduce the disruption to traffic and pedestrians and partly to reduce damage to the environment and those wonderful trees. It has developed something called computer-assisted three-dimensional digital mapping, assisted by pneumatic moles and directional drills. Time prevents me from going into the technical details.
The important point is that the result is that Midlands Electricity does most of its work using trenchless technology. The company has found that open-cut trenching is more expensive. By using trenchless technology, it has reduced the cost of cabling by 46 per cent. Not only is the policy environmentally friendly, it is cost-effective. If Midlands Electricity can do that, why cannot other utility companies?
I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to pass on the message to Government colleagues that there is a need for a national strategy from the Government. Leaving it up to local authorities will not work, and relying on tree planting will not solve the problem either. Utility companies need to be encouraged by various means—the carrot as well as the stick—to make greater use of trenchless technology.
We need more effective tree preservation guidelines for street trees. People with a tree preservation order on a mature tree on their property know exactly what can happen if they do not look after the tree. I would like the same tough guidelines to apply to street trees. I am reluctant to use the phrase "joined-up government"—it seems to cause mirth—but that is what is needed. The responsibility lies with various Departments; the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department of Trade and Industry and, possibly, the Treasury. They must work closer together, and with practitioners and experts such as the national urban forestry unit, whose headquarters is in Wolverhampton.
It is easy to take our mature street trees for granted. We often do not notice them until they are gone. I would argue that urban forestry is not an optional extra, but a necessity. If my constituents are to continue to enjoy breathing good-quality air, we must ensure that these mature street trees are safe for generations to come.

Mr. Peter Viggers: I urge that the House should not adjourn until further consideration is given to the crisis in the defence medical services. As we hear of the tragedy in and around Kosovo, we become aware that nothing could be more useful to our armed forces than to

have access to first-class medical facilities. Unfortunately, those are not readily available now. It is widely accepted by the Government that the defence medical services are in crisis.
"Defence Cost Studies 15"—which was implemented from 1994—proposed to focus the defence medical services in one single centre of tri-service excellence, which would have been the Royal hospital, Haslar, in my constituency. It was intended that the hospital should be built up from 200 beds to 330 or 375. In fact, following management difficulties, that did not happen.
We now have a service in crisis. Most of our armed forces have been cut by 30 per cent., but the defence medical services have been cut by about 40 per cent. We now have about half the number of doctors that we need, and about three quarters of the nurses. Many facilities and faculties are on the edge of collapse. There is a need for 11 surgical posts, of which seven are overseas. There are not enough surgeons to man those posts. These facts come from a Ministry of Defence booklet, "Defence Medical Services—Strategy for the Future", where the crisis is widely accepted.
The Government's solution is—would you believe?—to close the only tri-service hospital, Haslar, although it is widely recognised in the defence medical services that removing the current centre of medical excellence and building another elsewhere will exacerbate the crisis. As I have told senior officials, if Haslar is closed, it will take 20 years to rebuild defence medical services. If that rather extreme analysis is questioned, let me point out that such services are consultant based, and that it takes 20 years to train a consultant in all the skills required in the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force. We cannot man defence medical services with migrant Australian doctors and pull them in when they are needed; we need people who are trained in war skills as well as medical skills.
There is some rationale in the Government's plan. They have said, for instance, that a district general hospital needs a catchment of 500,000 people, and that there are not that many people in the Gosport and Portsmouth area. It must, however, be possible for an arrangement to be reached between the national health service and the Ministry of Defence, whereby Haslar could specialise in fields in which it was already supreme, such as surgery, ear, nose and throat, burns, gastroenterology and dermatology, and doctors, nurses and other staff could be trained in other specialties in other hospitals in the south Hampshire area.
It has been said on the Government's behalf that MOD hospital units provide the training that doctors, nurses and other paramedics need. Although such units are widely praised in the Government, I can say—following extensive consultation with those in the defence medical services—that the units at Derriford, Frimley and Peterborough are not working well from a personnel point of view. They may provide the medical services that are needed, as well as providing medical training, but they do not provide the way of life sought by those who join the armed forces. People are leaving the defence medical services in droves because they are not given the back-up that they need.
As might be expected, this is an issue of deep concern in my constituency. We are having the time of our lives demonstrating its local importance. I called for a rally and march, which took place on 24 January. We thought that


a few thousand people might attend; in fact, 22,000 marched to save Haslar. At the suggestion of a local councilor—a Labour councillor, it must be said—we manned the local park. We wrote "Save Haslar" in letters 11 metres high and 6 metres wide, and about 1,500 people formed a long line stretching to the hospital, which was indicated by an arrow. All that took place at 6.45 pm. Following a loudspeaker announcement, we held up torches and wrote "Save Haslar" in lights; that appeared live on television. Last Wednesday, we took a petition to No. 10 Downing street, and on the same day I presented a petition in the House. Each petition was signed by 50,000 people or more. We have demonstrated just how much local people care.
The Government have said that they will consult widely on the closure of Haslar and the future of defence medical services. I was able to present in the House a petition bearing the corporate seals of Gosport, Fareham and Havant borough councils, Portsmouth city council and Hampshire county council, all of which had pleaded for Haslar to be kept open to maintain proper provision for both civilians and defence medical services. Surely, if consultation means anything, that should be enough to show how strongly people feel. More than 100,000 people are treated at Haslar annually, of whom some 80 per cent. are civilians, and the hospital deals with more than 20,000 accident and emergency cases.
One question must surely force the Government to maintain Haslar. Anyone involved in politics will remember the war of Jennifer's ear, which involved the delaying of a little girl's ear operation at the time of the last general election. The Labour party, which was then in opposition, blamed the callous, uncaring Conservative Government for not providing funds to enable the operation to take place earlier. Let me make a different point. There is no doubt that, if the accident and emergency unit at Haslar is closed, lives will be lost between the Gosport peninsular and the nearest other accident and emergency hospital. What message will the Government send to the bereaved when those lives are lost?
I put that point graphically because it is a real point, which is of public concern. It should also be of political concern, and I therefore urge the House not to adjourn until the Government have undertaken to consult genuinely, and to allow a delegation from south Hampshire to speak to senior Ministers. Such a delegation should plead with the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Health to allow Haslar to remain—not just because it is a centre of local excellence for the civilian population, but because we in south Hampshire care deeply about defence forces, of which defence medical services form an integral part.

Mr. John Healey: I want to raise matters connected with the single gateway, a subject that does not sit neatly in one Department and, although important, is not urgent. It does not find a comfortable slot in our normal Chamber timetable, and I am grateful for the opportunity to raise it today.
I note that Ministers have started to refer simply to the single gateway, rather than the single work-focused gateway—possibly because those who get their hands

dirty dealing with clients had started to use the near-acronym "Swarfega". It is fine to refer to the single gateway—a gateway to government support and services—but we must not lose the word "focus" in the implementation, even if we lose it in the name. There are three reasons for that.
First, the Government's specific aim is to provide a single point of access to a range of services, not just to the benefits system. Secondly, the general economic aim of the Government's welfare-to-work policies is to increase the sustainable level of employment by putting more recipients of benefits in touch with their local labour markets. We are already doing that with the new deal. Thirdly, the general aim of the single gateway and of welfare reform is to change the whole culture—to move away from the question "How much should we pay you in benefits?" and towards the question "How can we help you to become more independent?" Providing people with opportunities to work in the open, intermediate and sheltered labour markets is one of the principal ways of doing that.
I am proud to be a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, which visited Australia last November and, in January, produced a report entitled "Active Labour Market Policies And Their Delivery: Lessons from Australia". In Australia, separate Department of Social Security and Commonwealth Employment Service local office networks were integrated in September 1997, and a new agency, Centrelink, was formed. Centrelink offices act as gateways to benefits and a wide range of Government services, assisting unemployed people, students, families, homeless people and aboriginal people. They serve as a unified point of delivery for services that were formerly delivered by four different Departments. More than 400,000 appointments are booked each month, half a million decisions are made each week and 232 million payments are made each year.
The concept is, however, deeply compromised by the separation of the job network—a network of agencies competing to provide job search, advice and assistance for unemployed people—from the Centrelink operation. For unemployed people looking for work in Australia, Centrelink is the point of registration and classification, but Centrelink staff are not allowed to advise clients on their choice of job network provider. They are not able to act as personal advisers to those unemployed people. Nor are they able to access 90 per cent. of the vacancies that are available in Australia, as those vacancies are held by job network providers.
As we look to implement the single gateway, we need to learn such lessons from elsewhere. It is essential that the Employment Service and other employment and training agencies are built into the single gateway from the start. It is essential that the single gateway does not become benefits driven. I am happy to say that the Select Committee on Education and Employment is about to embark on a joint inquiry with the Select Committee on Social Security. That will be one factor that will figure prominently in our inquiry.
The single gateway has the potential to revolutionise the way in which people see and experience the Government's role in welfare and work support. There is an opportunity to realise the aspirations of my right


hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office in the White Paper that was published yesterday, "Modernising government", in which he states:
Better provision of better services available from government at all levels is central to the approach of Modernising Government",
and it is central to the concept of the single gateway. However, the first four pilots for the single gateway begin in June, and eight more are due to follow in November. I wish to register a concern that we may be missing a once-and-for-all opportunity in two areas as we move towards implementing the single gateway.
First, the pilots risk being an emaciated test of the potential of the single gateway. They will be run for three years, but will deal only with new benefit claimants—a total of no more than perhaps 30,000 each year in each area, 75 to 80 per cent. of whom will be jobseeker's allowance claimants.
Those pilots are much too modest in scale and too restricted in scope. For example, those who want to claim the new range of in-work tax credits, in-work housing benefits or child benefit only will still have to go through the existing system, which will be run alongside single gateway interviews and arrangements. The Government's drive towards greater integration of tax and benefits policies must be matched with greater integration of tax and benefits delivery. Indeed, we need to incorporate benefit "payments out" from Government with "tax payments in", just as they aim to do in Australia.
Secondly, the single gateway is justifiably championed as a significant step towards joined-up government, but we cannot have joined-up government unless we have joined-up information. The single gateway must be championed as a significant step towards electronic government as well.
Although face to face contact with personnel advisers will be central to the success of the single gateway, the concept of the one-stop shop is simply not location bound. Centrelink in Australia, for example, makes extensive use of the internet and plans in the near future for claim forms to be electronically available, completed and dispatched back to benefits offices.
That electronic access offers the potential to help the Government to achieve their policy aims, but it also raises important questions about how we prevent such access from adding further to social exclusion. Patterns of personal computer ownership and of internet access are skewed, with a male, middle-income bias. The same is true of card-based information access and storage methods. Smart cards and magnetic strips all display that bias in their use.
The most widely used technologies are those found in the home: telephones and television. Telephone call centres have been used extensively and effectively in Australia. They have been used in the UK successfully with Employment Direct. I welcome the fact that the call centre will be the base for four of the single gateway pilots that will start in November in Somerset, Buckinghamshire, Gwent Borders and Calderdale, Kirklees.
It is the development of digital television that presents the opportunity to ensure that we have service access through a medium with which people are familiar and which can be navigated using controls that need not be very different from those that people are already used to. However, that presumes that public information and public service channels are part of the digital television age.
Public information and public service channels are not a priority for digital television service providers. Jane Stephenson of Granada Sky Broadcasting spoke for the whole industry when she said recently that public service information "is not a priority". GSB's programme content, for the moment anyway, is largely driven by the commercial formats that it has chosen, so home shopping is much more of a priority than, say, information on social services. The danger is that structures will be set now in a way that will inhibit the use of DTV for electronic public services.
The issues are these. What regulation or incentive will be needed to ensure public service access through DTV? How will the costs of DTV access for people on low incomes be met? Now is the time to consider those questions: while the ground rules for DTV and its technology are being set, before a dominant provider emerges and before the negotiating hand of the commercial organisations is strengthened in relation to Government.
If the Government's vision for a single gateway can be expanded in that way, it can live up to its advance billing as a radical and far-reaching reform. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will play his part in that development and will pass my concerns on to those colleagues who are involved in that important project.

Mr. Paul Tyler: It has been a fascinating debate, as recess Adjournment debates always are. The problem is that, as the debate progresses, we find that we have many similar points and points of mutual interest when a constituency issue is raised, and that we want to comment on everything, but I will leave that to the other two Front-Bench spokesmen because I want to make one substantial point on a major issue of concern.
I am struck by the number of occasions when we have seen the connection between food and health. They are critical to our fellow citizens. For example, I take the contributions of the hon. Members for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who were both concerned about breast cancer. I am sure that every hon. Member has unfortunate, sad, tragic stories from constituents of how the system has failed our society in terms of diagnosis, prevention or treatment.
The specialist scientific report for the European Union directed our attention to an apparent connection—I put it no stronger than that—between hormone-treated beef that the United States is seeking to export to the European Union and the incidence—indeed the increase—in breast cancer. Food and health march together and we should never forget that.
The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) correctly identified a major problem in the way in which we treat our most vulnerable citizens. There is an almost precise replica of the situation that he described at Bridge hospital, in his community, at St. Lawrence's hospital in Bodmin in my constituency, which serves the whole south-west. Again, health is obviously central to our concerns.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) talked about the problems that our food industry is facing. Again, there will be major implications for the health of


the nation if we do not get the right balance between nutrition, food quality and health. That is why I am so delighted to see the report of the special pre-legislative Select Committee on Food Standards. I take some responsibility for that Committee because, as a member of the Select Committee on Modernisation, I was enthusiastic about the idea of proper scrutiny before a Bill is set out in black and white. I shall refer briefly to the wide ranging and urgent implications of that Committee.
The problem with pre-legislative scrutiny is that it takes time, and we do not have much time in which to improve the situation. The Committee is saying that important nutritional issues are at stake.
I should declare an indirect interest in that my wife is a director of a famous traditional grocer's shop in Cornwall. Hon. Members who come to the best part of the British Isles for a holiday during the recess may care to call. Although, of course, I cannot advertise the shop, everyone knows that we have the best speciality food in the United Kingdom, if not the western world. My wife is a director, and I am a shareholder. Whether what I have to say about the Food Standards Agency will impinge on that enterprise, I know not. However, hon. Members would be well advised to head west over the next few days.
The Food Standards Committee report rightly draws attention to the continuum from food safety through quality to nutrition. It is difficult to divide those factors up. That is why I find it difficult to accept the Government's apparent limitation on the role of the agency. We should listen carefully to the Committee, because, particularly when it comes to information rather than advertising, it will be difficult to draw the line at which the agency should stop.
Recommendations 5 and 8 are extremely important. Recommendation 13 deals with connections to specific agencies that operate under the aegis of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Other hon. Members may have dealt with the Pesticides Safety Directorate or the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. The hon. Member for Ludlow has joined me several times to look at the work of such directorates. If their work is totally divorced from the agency, the agency's work will be much depleted.
Most importantly, the Meat Hygiene Service must be brought under the control of the independent FSA, and it must be properly accountable to Parliament. The current crisis in the abattoir industry has been some time in coming. When Labour Members sat on the Opposition Benches, many of them joined me in attacking the previous Government over the MHS, recognising that it would not be properly accountable. It is critical that we should bring those burdens on the food industry under control.

Mr. Rowe: Is there not a serious danger that the FSA will find all sorts of ways to lay restrictions on the British food industry? If supermarkets are going to demand certain standards of production from British producers, should we oblige them not to buy from foreign producers who produce to a less stringent protocol?

Mr. Tyler: I welcome what the hon. Gentleman says, and only wish that I had received such support during

the previous Parliament: the problem was important then, and it has got worse. A level playing field is needed, not just to be fair to the industry, but to provide consistent quality for consumers.
The way in which the FSA is responsible to Parliament—and therefore to our constituents—is a critical matter. The special Select Committee has taken its own experience of considering the issue—drawing members from both the Agriculture Committee and the Select Committee on Health—as a template for dealing with the matter. Before the general election, I suggested that this matter was so crucial to the nation that the agency should not be responsible to any single Whitehall Department, but to a Select Committee along the lines of the Public Accounts Committee. Accountability will be crucial.
Funding is another issue. The Government initially proposed to impose a flat rate on all eligible food establishments—a food poll tax. The outrage expressed throughout the country has, I hope, made Ministers think again. I am delighted to see that the special Select Committee report discards that idea in no uncertain terms, saying:
We believe that the flat rate principle is contrary to natural justice and we recommend that the Government implement a graduated system following its consultation exercise.
I hope to hear an early announcement that that will happen.
I can illustrate the absurdity of the initial proposal with an example from Inverness. I visited a small family bakery last Tuesday. It has 11 small outlets in villages around Inverness, and the total initial bill for the 12 establishments would be £1,000 a year. The enormous supermarket a few hundred yards away would pay £90. There is something basically so illogical about that ludicrous proposal that I hope the Minister can tell us it has been kicked into touch.

Mr Gill: Does the hon. Gentleman support the principle that the cost of the FSA should be charged to the trade, or does he share my view that if the Government impose regulation or inspection on an industry, the Government should pay for it?

Mr. Tyler: As the point, principal and core objective of the new agency is public health, which must be a core responsibility of the Government, core funding should indeed come from the taxpayer's purse.

Ms Sally Keeble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyler: I am up against time, and the hon. Lady may not have a chance to speak herself if I go on too long.
If there must be some contribution from the industry—the Select Committee makes some suggestions but I have no time to go into them—it must be based on square footage. That is quite easy to work out; the House considered the matter in relation to Sunday trading. However, as the hon. Member for Ludlow said, funding is a core responsibility of Government because public health cannot be more important.
The report refers to the responsibilities of the FSA in international terms. Having recently been to the World Trade Organisation in Geneva, I recognise that our agency


will have an input within the European framework on issues such as BST hormone treatment, meat, milk and the American tendency to try to create a new food imperialism.
I shall refer briefly to a specific case in which the FSA is urgently required. In this respect I note the remarks made by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) about the need for an even playing field.
Last summer, on 17 June 1998, in a debate on the Food Safety Act 1990, I referred to the case of Duckett and Aldridge, specialist cheese makers. I do not want to repeat all the arguments in that debate, except to say that I had the support of the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) in drawing attention to the extent to which the so-called hygiene police were disastrously overreacting in that case. If that case is to be a model of how the Food Standards Agency will operate, we are in big trouble, as we shall be imposing great and unjustified bureaucratic burdens on smaller specialist, craft food producers and processors.
We all owe a debt to Messrs Christopher Booker and Richard North. Some years ago, they published a wonderful book, illustrated by the inimitable Willie Rushton—it is therefore good Easter recess reading—entitled "The Mad Officials—How Bureaucrats are Strangling Britain". Incidentally, it was published in 1995 and deals with the 15 years of Conservative Administration prior to that date—so let none of us think that such bureaucratic burdens are anything new.
In last June's debate, I pointed out that the Ministry's attitude to small producers was entirely unacceptable.

Mr. David Heath: I know a little about the case to which my hon. Friend is referring. I also know that excellent book. Is not one of the problems the fact that the offences he has mentioned are treated as absolute offences—in which no mitigation is available for having employed the best available technology and taken every possible precaution? If a company is found to have transgressed, it can be put out of business, despite the fact that it is doing an excellent job in producing a wholesome product.

Mr. Tyler: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend—who, coming from Somerset, will be very well aware both of the circumstances and of their repercussions over the entire food industry, not only in the south-west but across the country.
Just last week, at a special meeting of the Farmers Club, I met some of the people involved in the case, and for a specific reason. Although the Department of Health lost the case, it lost on a technicality. Consequently, one very good producer and one very good wholesaler of cheese are effectively uncompensated and are in danger of being run out of town and ruined. Moreover, currently, they have no redress; indeed, the very reverse applies. For reasons that Ministers will not explain to me, the Department of Health will appeal the case. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will be able—although not today—to extract an answer from the Department of Health on exactly what it is doing with taxpayers' money in trying devastate two extremely valuable food processors and wholesalers.
The text of last June's debate shows that the Minister for Public Health was woefully misinformed about the nature of the action taken by her officials. In attempting

to explain to other hon. Members and to me what had happened, she was not able to give us the full picture. I shall give only one example. She said:
A 12-year-old boy developed not a minor tummy upset but renal failure, was put on dialysis and was found to have an E. coli 0157 infection."—[Official Report, 17 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 343.]
That is just not true. The boy had recovered by the time he was given renal treatment, which he had been put on for purely preventive purposes, to ensure that there was no recurrence of the disease. He was not put on dialysis because he was suffering from a major problem. The nature of the Minister's reply suggests that the hygiene police were in extraordinarily defensive mode. They not only overreacted, but subsequently covered up their mistakes.
If the incident is an example of the way in which the Food Standards Agency will operate, there is a very big problem of which all hon. Members should be aware. I trust, however, that the Government will take full account of the advice of the special Select Committee. We surely have to ensure that our fellow citizens are able to make an informed choice of food. They will therefore have to know when food comes from a foreign source with lower animal welfare standards, and less stringent legislation on labour and global environmental impact. We have to accept that it will not be sufficient for the Food Standards Agency simply to worry about risk; it will have to be concerned with the entire continuum, through quality to nutrition.
I believe that the citizens of the United Kingdom—our colleagues and our constituents—have every right to be confident in the quality of good British food. However, unless we are very careful, many manufacturers, processors and wholesalers of that quality food will be out of business before the Food Standards Agency has even started work.

Mr. Jon Trickett: I should like briefly to speak about an injustice that is being done not only to my constituency but to most of the other areas in the former English coalfields. The injustice is compounding the problems caused by the industrial, economic and social cataclysm that followed the 1984 strike, in which 190,000 jobs directly related to the coal mining industry were lost. The jobs were lost not in metropolitan areas, where the unemployed might eventually have had access to other jobs, but in small towns, villages and hamlets such as those in my constituency—Featherstone, Hemsworth, Upton, Ackworth, South Elmsall, Crofton and South Kirkby. Those communities have little or no infrastructure, and no access to other local jobs.
The injustice is continued governmental underfunding in assisting those areas' regeneration. The injustice is unwitting and is, I fear, a product of how our statisticians work. Current measures of deprivation result in funding regimes that inadequately reflect the true deprivation of former coalfield areas. Local authority funding levels in all coal mining areas are very low, and, in the current review, European funding—which was previously the one saviour of our communities—is in danger of being lost.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is increasingly relying on only one index—the index of local conditions. Consequently, a variety of funding regimes will increasingly be based on that one index.
I do not want to engage in some type of competition, demonstrating how poor my area is compared with other deprived areas. I shall leave such a competition to other people, as I think that it would be unprincipled to argue that other deprived areas should lose funding. Nevertheless, I feel that the index of local conditions relies too much on housing condition and probably also on ethnicity—thereby discriminating against areas, such as mine, where the housing stock has, over the years, been well-maintained by the local authority, and where there is an overwhelming preponderance of people from an ethnically white background.
The European Union relies on various indices of deprivation. Eligibility for objective 1 funding—which is the highest-level funding that might be available to Hemsworth, or to any other area in the English coalfields—is determined on the basis of gross domestic product output per head. To be eligible for such funding, areas must be at 75 per cent. or less in the index. An independent analysis of the communities in my area shows that we are probably at about 75 per cent., or just marginally over it. Therefore, we should be able to receive objective 1 money. Sadly, however, the European Union does not propose basing its analysis on district level in determining eligibility for those funds.
In determining communities' eligibility for objective 2 funding, however, the European Union uses a secondary index, based on district unemployment levels.
Unemployment is notoriously difficult to measure. Over the years we have seen disputes in the House and elsewhere over the true level of unemployment. In Wakefield, which is the district in which my constituency lies, the official level of unemployment is 9.1 per cent., which is less than the European Union average. I believe that that dramatically understates the situation in Wakefield, Hemsworth and throughout the coalfield area. Wakefield district lost one in 10 of all jobs lost in the coal mining industry since 1984. A total of 190,000 jobs were savaged for reasons that we all know. Wakefield lost 20,000 of those jobs—one tenth of all the coalfield losses. That is the equivalent of 63 jobs per 1,000 people in my area.
How can the unemployment statistics get it so wrong? One clue that might lead to a solution to that riddle lies in the health-related statistics for the Wakefield area. In Wakefield, as in many other parts of the coalfield, the standardised mortality ratios are very high. Wakefield has 11 per cent. more deaths than could be expected on average in Britain as a whole. About 29 per cent. of our households—almost one in three—contains somebody suffering from a limiting long-term illness.
There is massive understatement of the true level of unemployment in the coalfield areas. In Wakefield, 29 per cent. of people of working age—it is higher in my constituency—are regarded as being economically active. That is the real clue to the understatement of the coalfield unemployment figures. I have no doubt that real employment in Wakefield as a whole is between 18 and 20 per cent.—one in five of the population. I reckon that about 40 per cent. of households—two out of five—have nobody who is economically active. How can the statistics used by the Government and the European Union so badly understate our position so that we are left without access to the resources we need for regeneration?
The villages that I represent and now live among are sinking gradually but inexorably further into poverty. Statistics show that before the introduction of the minimum wage, an increasing number of people were living on £2.50 or less per hour. The statistics on poverty and household income levels show that increasing numbers of households in Hemsworth, Wakefield and throughout the coalfield areas are sinking further into poverty.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office understands the coalfield areas and I urge him to take this message back to his colleagues in Government and tell them that the coalfields are suffering from an injustice as a result of the indices of deprivation that the Government have adopted. They understate the true level of suffering and poverty in our communities. We need help from people such as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who understands our area, in order to convince the Government that we need access to the badly needed funds for regeneration.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sorry that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have not been able to participate in the debate. That is most unfortunate. However, the Parliamentary Secretary and I have cut down our remarks considerably and will be speaking for rather less time than the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) in order to try to answer the debate. We have heard 15 speeches which have raised some 31 or 32 issues. It would be almost impossible to deal with them all in just over 10 minutes, but I will deal with as many as I can.
Many of my colleagues have referred to the importance of this debate in the parliamentary calendar. As I saw the frustration on the faces of some hon. Members it occurred to me that the next time we do this we should continue the debate until 2 o'clock. That would give everybody an opportunity to participate. Perhaps we should ask Madam Speaker to consider limiting speeches to a maximum of 15 minutes. Those two changes would give everybody the opportunity to participate. Fifteen minutes is a reasonable limit and would enable more colleagues to get in.
This is one of the few opportunities that Back-Bench Members have to bring to the House issues that are causing them concern. Although there was no common thread running through the speeches—nobody would expect that—there was common concern to put before the House issues of considerable importance.
No hon. Member has been frivolous. We have heard some amusing comments and that is good. I am delighted that my omnibus Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) managed to contribute again. He does not abuse the time of the House. He spoke for only 10 minutes and raised eight issues. I am pleased for him that the Palace theatre in Westcliff, although dark at the moment, will have its pantomime horse back at the end of the year. I am sorry that the police horses will not be there to patrol the crowds as they go in to watch my hon. Friend's bravura performance.
We began with a serious speech from the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) who is an habitual contributor to these debates. We are glad that he has made a full recovery. He talked about the tragic incidents in his constituency and that of his hon. Friend the Member for


Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) of the two ladies who had their breasts removed unnecessarily. He made a powerful plea for a national inquiry and some national standards. I hope that his words will be heeded by his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and, more importantly, by the Secretary of State for Health. It was an important issue to raise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) talked about the literally growing problem of leylandii hedges. There is probably not an hon. Member who has not had experience of this problem. He was right to draw it to our attention. He also talked about the NSPCC's important campaign on cruelty to children. He spoke with all the knowledge of a trustee of that most important organisation. I hope that all hon. Members will back that campaign. However, it is important that we never encourage those who make spurious allegations against parents. It has reached an absurd position in some cases where the most minor chastisement of a child is interpreted in some quarters as abuse. It is important to get the balance right. He also talked about the expectations we place upon the police and he was right to do so.
The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) made what I would call a classic speech for this debate because he focused on one issue of great concern to him and his constituency—the future of Bridge hospital. He hopes that it will not be closed. I cannot comment in detail because I do not know the hospital, but he made a cogent case which deserves a cogent and well thought out answer. I hope that he will get that from Ministers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) illustrated how important it is that we should have in the House hon. Members who have practical experience of the subjects about which they are speaking. There can be no hon. Member who knows more about an individual subject than my hon. Friend knows about the meat industry. The Government must take to heart his plea for the owners of small abattoirs and his illustration of the plight of pig producers. It is ludicrous that some of the owners of small abattoirs are facing, within a very short time, an escalation of costs up to 10 times or more what they are paying now. That can have only one catastrophic result, which my hon. Friend pointed out graphically, and that is the closure of those small abattoirs and nobody will benefit from that. He was also right to talk about the plight of the pig industry and how ludicrous it is that foreign imports of a far inferior quality will force out our own, wonderful, home-produced pork and other pig products.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who nearly always talks about international affairs in these debates, turned his attention to Kashmir. He did the House a service in so doing. It is an immensely complicated and almost intractable problem and I will be careful what I say about it. All I would tell him is that it is right to use the Floor of the House to raise such issues. Let us hope that, with the dexterity that was not apparent when the Foreign Secretary first ventured to comment on the issue, the right hon. Gentleman will return to it and may play a part in bringing together India and Pakistan. Without their complete agreement and a binding settlement the problem will fester into the next century.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) mentioned a problem in his constituency and made some serious accusations about a company. He made them with such

quiet passion that I hope that they will be investigated. If the situation is indeed as he described it, that company has behaved very badly.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) talked about the A3 at Hindhead and asked for some replies to her questions, as she has a right to do. She also mentioned the fact that Ministers have refused to see deputations. I have had experience of that problem when roads and education issues have been raised. The Minister refused to meet Members of Parliament who represent Staffordshire—hon. Members from both the main parties—to discuss education funding there, which is utterly disgraceful. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) wanted to speak in the debate and I know that I speak for him in making that point.
The hon. Member for Bolsover made an inimitable speech. Again, he showed hon. Members how to do it because in eight minutes he made some extremely pithy points. In boasting of his acumen as a trade union negotiator, he perhaps boasted too much in the case of Derbyshire, but certainly not too much in the case of people suffering from emphysema and white finger. We are all glad about that settlement and it is important that the people concerned should be paid as quickly as possible because they have suffered enormously.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) obviously has an extremely versatile spaniel. He made some good points about the road haulage industry and play groups. He ended on a more serious topic. There is widespread concern in the House about events in Northern Ireland. Many of us find it difficult to see terrorists who have clearly been guilty of the most despicable crimes being freed. My right hon. Friend went considerably further than I would go in his remarks. We must all hope that this Easter does indeed see the furthering of the peace process that was embarked upon on Good Friday last year.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) made a classic Adjournment debate speech when she talked about trees in town streets. My constituency is adjacent to hers and I know that she speaks with knowledge and authority and I support all that she said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) made another powerful plea for the Royal hospital, Haslar. If we wanted an object lesson in how to put forward a case, we have only to take advice from my hon. Friend. I hope that all the peaceful demonstrations with which he has been involved will result in the only just answer, which is the preservation of that extremely important hospital.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) talked about the gateway to services in the light of the White Paper that was published yesterday. The hon. Member for North Cornwall discussed the Food Standards Agency and made a good point about the so-called poll tax on food. I sincerely hope that the Government will take that argument on board. I also hope that we will not see more of the ludicrous interfering, which resulted in terrible problems for the Duckett and Aldridge cream cheese producers. The hon. Gentleman was right to highlight those problems.
We ended with the speech from the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Trickett) who made a powerful plea for some regeneration in his part of the Yorkshire coalfield.


He was magnanimous enough to say that he fully recognised the fact that other areas have similar problems. We have lost our coal mines in Staffordshire and although I would not wish to enter into a competition with him, I will merely say that I am aware of the importance of his arguments, which the Government need to tackle, perhaps, more satisfactorily they have been doing.
We have had a useful debate, in which a number of important issues have been raised. Obviously, I cannot deal with every last one. In the remaining minutes I shall mention a couple more. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West, in his wide-ranging speech, mentioned graffiti—a problem that, literally, defaces many of our constituencies. I hope that we will have an onslaught on that appalling menace in the next year. Let us have a clean country to enter the millennium.
A number of hon. Members mentioned this House. One reason why so many Members wished to take part in the debate and why there is such frustration in the House is that the Chamber is becoming increasingly sidelined. Although it would be wrong for me to anticipate the report of the Modernisation Committee on the Main Committee—we must look at that, read it carefully and debate it thoroughly—as I have said before from the Dispatch Box, anything that detracts from the centrality of this Chamber should be resisted and anything that can put life back into it and will make Ministers more accountable and bring them here more often to be held to account must be supported.
I am delighted to see that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, is to reply to the debate again. Please will he tell his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—who we accept has many important issues on his mind at the moment—that we would appreciate seeing the right hon. Gentleman a little more often in and around the House of Commons. He has appeared in the Division Lobby far less than any Prime Minister in recorded history and we want to see a little more of him because, after all, he is our Prime Minister.

Mr. Skinner: You lot hate his guts.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I do not. The hon. Gentleman knows that hatred is not an emotion that I find easy to embrace. I am speaking personally but I am also speaking for my party—we are not a party that hates, but a party that tries to be constructive. In that spirit, I will end by wishing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and everyone in the House a happy Easter.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office(Mr.paddy Tipping): I shall carry on from where the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) left off. I am conscious that, as we speak, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Northern Ireland doing extremely important work. I am also conscious that, last week, he was at the European Heads of Government summit in Berlin. I also know, because I took the opportunity to look up the figures, that my right hon. Friend has missed only two Prime Minister's Question Times since he came to office and he has answered more questions at Question Time than his predecessors.
I agree with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire that it is important to bring life into the Chamber. There has been plenty of life, interest and debate this morning, with 15 hon. Members aising a range of constituency and wider matters. I believe that we need to look into ways to give more hon. Members more opportunities to have a say. The Main Committee has been mentioned during our debate. The report of the Modernisation Committee will be available after Easter, and I look forward to an early debate and discussion on it. Hon. Members have made various suggestions about how we should give more Members more opportunities to speak, and I am keen to look into those. I shall certainly consider carefully the suggestion that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire made about extending the debate.
I apologise to hon. Members who had no opportunity to speak. Perhaps I should get my retaliation in first. It will not be possible to reply to all the points made this morning, but I undertake to write to everyone who has raised matters. That will destroy my Easter holidays and those of some officials. I may not have the chance to travel to the Isle of Wight or taste the delights of North Cornwall.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) put his case about the problems at the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal hospital well. I am pleased that the trust there has accepted responsibility. He asked for a wider investigation, and I am pretty confident that he will get one. He spoke strongly of the need for best practice. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is being launched today. I am delighted that we have achieved that and look forward to strong, positive work from it. I give him a hint that a colleague at the Department of Health will make a statement on breast cancer treatment soon and build on my hon. Friend's phrase about early treatment avoiding later pain. An extra £20 million has already been made available for breast cancer services. Another £150 million was announced this month. I hope that, in the next day or two, we will achieve our manifesto promise of early treatment for women with breast cancer. I hope that he and the women in Derbyshire who have been so cruelly treated do not have long to wait for that.
The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) raised three points. I agree that leylandii is a problem and that we must find a solution. His Bill may be a trigger for action. Colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are considering ways forward and are minded to give guidance and advice, but we may end up with legislation.
I join the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent and others in celebrating and praising the marvellous, life-saving work of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. It must work in partnership with others. I am sure that we can achieve more and that we would, if, as he suggested, we listened more to the voice of children. There is much to be learned from the youth Parliament that he has advocated for many years.
The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent wondered whether we ask the police to do too much. There are strong arguments on that. The police deal with crime but are also the ultimate emergency service. I know that there have been discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers and others to define the role of the


police and learn from best practice. We could learn much by comparing police forces and authorities more effectively.
My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) made a strong case for the Bridge hospital in his constituency. He knows that the Secretary of State for Health shares his concerns about the failure over many years of so-called community care. For community care to be successful, we must have real, not artificial, support mechanisms in the community. We need to offer people in Braintree, Witham and elsewhere a range of choices from residential accommodation, through focused community care in the sort of sheltered housing that he mentioned, to more diffuse community care and advice. His case can still be heard, and I will ensure that colleagues hear it.
Like the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), I come from a rural area. I noted the strength of his comments. I know the value of local abattoirs both to local employment and to animal welfare. I am delighted that he was able to meet the responsible Minister and that the Minister listened to him. The hon. Gentleman knows that no decision has yet been made on the level of charges. It is important to get this right and to try to help the pig industry. I know from my own visits that the industry feels that it competes on a far from level playing field. I am glad that we have made some progress on labelling. We need to reconsider the role of the supermarkets in that. It is important to raise standards, as he put it, for the best across Europe. It cannot be right that our producers have more liabilities than their competitors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) spoke about Kashmir. It would be nice to have the opportunity in the Easter holidays to visit the occupied part of Kashmir. That pleasure has been denied hon. Members for many years. He knows that we must build on the 1972 United Nations Simla agreement, the core of which is his argument that we need to bring people in India and Pakistan together.
I must progress quickly. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) made many points. I will write to him on them all. He and other hon. Members should note that this year's local government financial settlement has been the best for local authorities, including shire counties, since the new financial regulations came in.
I know of the concern in Carlisle about Polestar printworks. If my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) feels that there has been what I think he

called lying, he must contact the Director General of Fair Trading. My hon. Friend will pleased to know that inquiries are being made.
The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) asked about the A3. The Highways Agency is the responsible body for the study on behalf of the Government office of the south-east. I will ensure that the team leader is made known to her. The study will last two years. She asked for a meeting on site, and knows that there is an opportunity for a further meeting with the Minister responsible. I hope that she will take up that offer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) spoke strongly and movingly about miners in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and elsewhere. I am delighted that we are going to put real money into their pockets to reward them for what has not been achieved in the past. It is also important to act for coalfield areas such as Wentworth and Hemsworth and use new technology to change culture to ensure that they have new investment and a new future. I am very conscious of the bids for assisted area status for new regional funds from the European Union. I understand that the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry has written to all hon. Members this morning saying that he is happy to consult them.
I was pleased by what we heard about Wolverhampton. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) has been a strong advocate of city status for Wolverhampton. The area is on the up and up. I am delighted that there is urban forestry there and that the Government intend to build on the guidelines that she mentioned. I hope that we can green Wolverhampton.
As we move to the Easter recess, perhaps we should reflect that
April is the cruellest month … mixing
Memory and desire".
We have had plenty of memories and many more desires in the Chamber today. In conclusion, we should perhaps reflect that Easter is a period of rebirth and renewal. Both Kosovo and Northern Ireland have been mentioned in the debate. Let us hope that the pain, cruelty and torture there will end and that, in the coming months, we shall see the signs of rebirth, new life and democratic renewal.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We now come to the debate in the name of the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter).

Secondary Education (Plympton)

Mr. Gary Streeter: You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the Minister will know, that, from time to time in our constituencies, a situation of real injustice arises that causes us to get angry. I bring to the House today a situation in my constituency that has certainly made me angry. For the people involved, it is a real injustice. Some people in Plympton in my constituency have been treated very badly indeed. The Minister is a father, as am I, so he will recognise that it is an extremely natural desire of parents to try to do the best for their children. At no time is that desire more demonstrated than when parents are trying to secure the best possible schooling for their children, especially in the secondary school sector. The upshot of what I am about to describe today is that, in September. 30 of my constituents will not be able to send their child to a school of their first or second choice, or even to a school in their community, such is the way in which the system has moved against them.
The parents are faced with bussing their child—in each case, their beloved 11-year-old son or daughter—to the other side of Plymouth, to which there is not a direct bus route, outside their local community. The children will be educated outwith their peer group of friends. It is a matter of great distress to every family involved. As I shall demonstrate, there is a solution that the local education authority could adopt. It is reasonable and doable, and it would meet the circumstances nicely. At the moment, the LEA is refusing to adopt that solution, for all the wrong reasons. That is why I am here today to urge the Minister to intervene.
It will be helpful for the Minister and the House if I set out the background to the situation that I have described. I have already referred to Plympton, a suburb of Plymouth at the heart of my constituency. Some 45,000 people live in Plympton. It is a self-contained community. It has many splendid facilities, although of course we could always do with more. Until the 1970s, Plympton was run by its own borough council, and it still enjoys many local traditions. We have civic groups and societies. A stannator is elected once a year in Plympton. It is very much its own community.
There are two secondary schools in Plympton—Hele's and Ridgeway. Both are excellent schools. For historical reasons, Hele's is slightly more popular most years. Every year, I try to help a handful of Plympton parents to get their child into Hele's school, even though they live outside the catchment area and the child is not in a feeder school for Hele's.
There has never been a year to date in which a child in a Hele's feeder school has not got a place at Hele's. That is an important piece of information, which I hope that the Minister has taken on board. The wonderful booklet produced by Devon county council, now Plymouth city council, about the education selection process refers to feeder schools feeding into secondary schools as if it happened as night follows day.
Most years, Ridgeway has a few spare places and parents who appeal for a place at Hele's and lose can do so, safe in the knowledge that they will at least get their child into Ridgeway and have him or her educated in the community of Plympton. It is always a struggle. There are

always lots of nerves, tensions and anxieties, but somehow it works. All Plympton families, to my knowledge, have been able to educate their children in Plympton if they wish to do so.
This year, the pattern seemed to be following its usual course. People were going to open days and discovering what school was best for their child and listening to what the schools had to offer. That was until 20 parents with children in feeder schools for Hele's received letters from the LEA out of the blue telling them that the school did not have a place at Hele's school for their child this year. There was no warning of that. They had attended parents evenings in the usual way and had had discussions with teachers and the head teacher. No one had ever suggested that Hele's feeder school children would not get into Hele's. It was a complete bombshell.
To make matters worse, parents in north Plymouth, perhaps to their credit, had begun to spot that Ridgeway school did not always fill up straight away with first choices, so several of them plumped for Ridgeway—a very good school—as their first choice. They chose to send their children to school three or four miles away. That was their choice, and I make no argument with that. The reason why they made that choice was that at least one school in north Plymouth is seen by parents—they are, after all, the test—to be failing. That is why they are looking around for schools in other parts of Plymouth. The upshot is that, as a result of the influx of children, Ridgeway school filled up this year with first preferences.
So those families who naturally chose Hele's because their children were in a feeder school for Hele's, and who did not have the faintest notion that they would not get in—cannot now send their child even to Ridgeway school in Plympton. They are joined by another group of parents who exercised their parental right perfectly reasonably and understandably to make Hele's their first choice, even though their children were in Ridgeway feeder schools. Naturally, this year they did not succeed. So 30 of my constituents cannot have their children educated in Plympton. For them, this is a very serious matter. Many of them have come to see me in my surgery. Many have described the position as the end of the world for them. It is a matter of the gravest concern.
The parents are faced with educating their children outside the community. There is not even a direct bus route from Plympton to north Plymouth. The children will have to go into the city centre and then out again on another bus. They face that obstacle when all the time there are two first-class secondary schools in their own community. Of course, parents are appealing individually against the decision, but we know that there is movement of only two or three places each year. So two or three of them may well succeed, leaving a class full of children who cannot be educated in their community.
My case for the Minister is simply that the Hele's feeder school families had no warning that they would not get their first choice. Hele's feeder school children had always got into Hele's. No one warned them that this year was different, although I believe that the LEA knew, or ought to have known, that, this year, the numbers were difficult and the situation was different. Not a word was breathed to the parents who were exercising their proper choice. I argue that parents of Hele's feeder school children did not get a proper first choice. At the very time when they were ticking the box for Hele's, automatically assuming that that was the right thing to do, the door to


that school was already closed. As a result of the movement from north Plymouth into Ridgeway school, their second choice was also closed off.
Those parents have been denied their first and second choice and face the prospect of bussing their children outside the area. That is unacceptable to them, to me and to local councillors. So what activity has taken place since the matter was drawn to my attention several weeks ago? I have had consultations with most of the parents. I have had extensive correspondence with the director of education and officials. I have had discussions with head teachers. I had a meeting last Friday with the local education area officials, the director of education and the chairman of education.
I believe that there is enormous sympathy within the LEA for the plight of the 30 families. However, the chairman is setting his face against finding the obvious solution. The obvious solution is that the LEA should ask one of the schools in Plympton—probably Ridgeway—to take in an extra class this year. I know that that would take it above its planned admission level, but 30 children from Plympton would then go to a Plympton school. Ridgeway school is undergoing a phase of refurbishment, I am pleased to say, which was agreed several years ago. Four mobile classrooms are being replaced and a new block is being built. It would not be impossible for one of those classrooms to be left while the extra intake of pupils saw their way through the school. The school is prepared to do that and the parents would be delighted, but the LEA refuses to take that step.
The local education authority has a strategic role in these matters; several months ago, it should have hovered above the situation and seen what was going to happen. At the earliest opportunity, it should have given the parents of the Hele's feeder school children the best information and told them that, this year, exceptionally, their children might not get into Hele's school. That would have allowed the parents to exercise a proper first choice. They could have taken the risk of choosing Hele's school, or they could have chosen Ridgeway so that their children would definitely be educated in Plympton. However, that advice was not forthcoming and, as a result, I argue that the parents did not have a proper choice.
I asked the LEA to intervene to sort out the matter. At present, the authority refuses to do so; its members acknowledge that there is a problem and that the situation will be improved next year. They will take better soundings from primary schools as to the number of children applying to Hele's. They will give local parents, councillors and myself better advice at an earlier stage. The LEA has acknowledged the needs of local people and that it needs to change its system. Although I welcome that, it will not help the group of 30 parents in Plympton who want their children to be educated in Plympton this year.
I urge the Minister to leave aside the advice that he might have received from his civil servants—I know what that might have been—and to place himself in the shoes of those 30 parents. He is a father and I ask him to share their mindset and understand their plight. I ask him to acknowledge that there is a solution: he can ask the LEA to direct Ridgeway school to form that additional class for which that group of 30 children is exactly the right number. I ask the Minister to intervene, although I do not know whether he will do so.
If the Minister does not intervene, the matter will not end here. It is clear that the LEA either knew, or should have known, more; it could have given better advice. Some parents are talking about maladministration and may well have a legal case against the LEA: that it fell short of its duty to give them the opportunity to make a proper first choice. Some of the parents are talking about taking such action. I very much hope that it will not come to that, but that the Minister will show us today that the Labour Government, who proclaim that they are caring, understand the plight of parents and support parental choice. I hope that he will stand at the Dispatch Box and insist that Ridgeway school takes another group of 30 pupils. If he will not, or cannot, do that, will he say what he thinks that the parents of children at Hele's feeder schools should have done to exercise their choice and, more importantly, what should they do now?
I hope that the Minister will intervene to solve this problem. It is a crisis for the families involved and it will not go away. It is not good enough to solve the problem next year. Those parents deserve to have their children educated in their local community this year. I hope that the Minister will make that possible.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) on securing the debate. I thank him for writing to me earlier this week setting out the substance of what he would say. I hope that that will result in a constructive exchange. I also thank Mr. Faruqi, the director of education for Plymouth, who has taken the trouble to write to me fully setting out the situation.
There is common ground between us on many of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. There are two secondary schools in Plympton: Hele's and Ridgeway. Places are allocated in accordance with clear criteria set out by the Plymouth education authority: first, children living in the school's designated area with an elder brother or sister who will be attending the school at the time of admission; secondly, children living in the school's designated area who attend a feeder primary school; thirdly, other children living in the school's designated area; fourthly, children living outside the school's designated area with an older brother or sister who will be attending the school at the time of admission; fifthly, children living outside the school's designated area who attend a feeder primary school; and, finally, other children living outside the school's designated area.
Next year, on the basis of those criteria, Hele's school will admit children in the first five of those six categories—a total of 211 children. Ridgeway will admit children from all six categories—a total of 190. When the hon. Member for South-West Devon referred to the building work at Ridgeway, I gave a wry smile because I think I am correct in saying that, under the Labour Government, £1.1 million of new deal money has been allocated to the school. The work may have been planned many years ago and the desire for improvement might have existed under the previous Government, but the fact is that this Government have allocated the resources to improve the school.
The allocation of places to those schools was in accordance with the admissions policy of the local education authority, as I understand it. That policy,


which I set out, is the subject of annual consultation. I am advised by the LEA that there were no objections from the hon. Gentleman or from anyone else during that period of consultation. It was determined following an agreed consultation process. That policy was publicised in the booklet "Next Step" to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his speech. The booklet sets out the details of the policy and warns parents of the tangible risk that they might not be awarded their first choice. In his speech, the hon. Gentleman suggested that the document implied that children from feeder primary schools would get into the secondary school—I think that he used the phrase "as surely as night follows day"—but I do not think that the document substantiates that. The document makes it clear that there are risks in the process—that is true for all parental choices throughout the country—and that parents must take those matters fully into account before making their decision.
In accordance with that policy and following advice, places were allocated—211 at Hele's and 190 at Ridgeway—leaving 53 children with a preference for those schools. Thirty of those children, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, live in the Plympton area. I am advised by the LEA that there are two reasons for the over-subscription to those two schools: first, the larger sibling cohort of that age range this year, making this year atypical both by comparison with past years and with expected numbers in future years; secondly, the "local pecking order"—to use the director of education's phrase in his letter to me—of parental preference in Plympton. He tells me that the preference is for Hele's school rather than Ridgeway. I think that the hon. Member for South-West Devon confirmed that in his speech and also in his letter to me. He seemed to suggest that he has advised parents to get their children into Hele's, in so far as he could.

Mr. Streeter: indicated dissent.

Mr. Clarke: If I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, I should be happy for the point to be clarified. In his letter, he stated:
Hele is slightly more popular and every year I help a handful of Plympton parents try and get their children into Hele, although they live just outside the catchment area and their child is not in a feeder school for Hele.

Mr. Streeter: I should like to clarify that point. I have never advised anyone that Hele's is a better school than Ridgeway; they are both excellent schools. However, if a constituent comes to me and says, "I want my child to go to Hele's", I do my best to help.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for that clarification but, with all respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman has slightly missed the point. The pecking order to which the director of education referred is about the preferences, views and attitudes of people towards the two schools and that affects their choice. My interpretation was that the hon. Gentleman was acknowledging that pecking order in the advice that he was giving to the parents in his constituency. Perhaps that interpretation was wrong, but I do not think so.
It is important that Members of Parliament should advise constituents to study carefully the local documents and the way in which the system operates, because of the

problems that the hon. Gentleman so eloquently described. I am glad that he said clearly that Hele's and Ridgeway were good schools because it is clear from what the director of education has written that everyone makes that point widely in the community. However, the two reasons that I have set out—the larger sibling cohort and the pecking order—are the principal reasons for the shortfall in places at the two schools.
The reason that the hon. Gentleman gave in his speech and in his letter to me—that a "badly failing" secondary school in north Plymouth is the cause of the problems—is simply not correct. In Plymouth, one primary school, but no secondary school, is on special measures; nor are any of the secondary schools in Plymouth judged by the Government to be failing, badly failing, failing schools in need of remedial action, and so on. Moreover, it is important to emphasise that the evidence that I have seen on the numbers admitted to Hele's and Ridgeway schools does not suggest that the principal reason for the excess number of applicants to those two schools is that people are coming from the catchment area of any "failing" schools the hon. Gentleman might be thinking of in the LEA area.
Therefore, the reason on which the hon. Gentleman rests much of his argument—that there is a badly failing school elsewhere in Plymouth which people are attempting to avoid by applying to Hele's and Ridgeway school—is not valid; that is not the cause of the problem. The cause of the problem was set out by the director of education: the larger sibling cohort and the pecking order. It is important that we all examine our own attitude toward such pecking orders and how they operate.

Mr. Streeter: With the greatest respect, I think that the Minister has missed the point. He must answer the question, how many children from outside the Plympton area have been accepted into Ridgeway school this year?

Mr. Clarke: I understand that it is a very small number—certainly not a number remotely near to the 53 children who have not got places at Hele's or Ridgeway school, or the 30 from the hon. Gentleman's constituency who comprise part of that 53.
Several measures have been suggested. I understand that some of the Plympton parents have suggested that offers to parents who do not come from the Plympton area be withdrawn. The hon. Gentleman did not make that suggestion and I do not suggest that that is his view, but I must make it clear to anyone who does believe that it would be right for the LEA to withdraw offers on the basis of geographical access that the LEA could not, and, in my opinion, should not do so.
The second suggestion, which the hon. Gentleman did make, is that an extra class should be created, either at Hele's or at Ridgeway school, to meet the increased number of pupils moving up from primary schools. I am advised by the LEA that it has consulted the heads of both Hele's and Ridgeway school on that proposal, but that both heads have made it clear that they do not want the overcrowding or the risk of educational standards falling in their schools that would be consequent on the extra class being established. The LEA has considered the proposal, consulted the schools and, based on the advice received from the schools, come to a view on the practicality of that proposed solution. During that process, both schools made it clear that they support the LEA's admissions policy.
I am told that the LEA has offered an interview with one of its officers to every pupil who has not got a place, so that they can discuss the situation in detail. As with all schools in the country, it is obvious that, as time passes, some places will become available as people do not take up places for various reasons. However, I fully acknowledge that only a small number of such places can be expected, so that process cannot meet the scale of the problem that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
I am sure that people will turn to the appeals process, and I know that the LEA will ensure that everyone has the full facts on which to base their decisions in that process. The hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not for me or the Government to second-guess the outcome of that process; the appeals committee will make its decisions based on the criteria set down in law. Those are the facts of the case and the history to the present day, and I believe that, with the important exception of the existence or otherwise of the "badly failing" school to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his letter, they are common ground between us.
As to the options available to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Department for Education and Employment, and to the hon. Gentleman's specific request, there are two areas in which the Secretary of State potentially has power. The first is the power to direct a school to admit a child. The position is as follows: the Secretary of State can exercise his general powers of intervention under sections 496 and 497 of the Education Act 1996 where he is satisfied that an LEA or governing body has failed to perform a duty imposed on it by, or for the purposes of, the Act, or has acted unreasonably in the performance of such duties.
Before the Secretary of State could intervene in the case that we are discussing, he would have to be satisfied that Plymouth LEA had acted unreasonably in the strict sense in which that word has been interpreted by the courts. The courts have ruled that, in this context, acting unreasonably means acting in a way in which no other authority having due regard to its legal responsibilities would have acted. In determining fair admissions arrangements, publishing them and then applying them fairly, it cannot, in our view, be said that the LEA has acted unreasonably within that tight definition. Therefore, it is not possible for the Secretary of State to direct a school to admit a child using his powers under sections 496 or 497.
Secondly, there is the question of providing extra places. In respect of the adequacy of school places, LEAs have a duty under section 14 of the Education Act 1996 to secure the provision of sufficient schools in their area. The Secretary of State could intervene only where it was clear that the LEA was failing in that duty. We sympathise with the Plympton parents and I emphasise that I fully

understand their despair and the reasons why the hon. Gentleman has felt this Adjournment debate is necessary. However, we have no evidence that there is any deficit in secondary places in the area as a whole—on the contrary. Nor is there evidence that the LEA has acted unreasonably in not being prepared to add a classroom at Ridgeway school—again, on the contrary; the LEA has consulted on that option, considered it and has not behaved unreasonably in deciding that is not a course of action that can be pursued. I believe that there are no grounds on which the Secretary of State could legally direct the LEA to add extra places in the area. Therefore, I regret that I am unable to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request to act in that respect; there is no legal basis for so doing.
To reinforce my earlier remarks, let me say that the Government strongly support the development of community schools and the rights of parental choice in education matters. We have immense sympathy for the Plympton parents who are experiencing those problems, but we do not believe that there is any way in which the Secretary of State can intervene with the LEA to change the situation. The matter is one for the LEA, which is taking steps to arrange transport. I am sorry to be unable to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. Streeter: Before the Minister sits down, will he tell me—whether as a Minister, a parent or a human being—what advice he would have given to the parents, especially the Hele feeder school parents, at the time that they made their original selection, given that every child at a Hele primary school has always got into Hele school?

Mr. Clarke: I hope that I am a parent, a human being and a child—did I say child? I meant to say, "and a Minister". That was a Freudian slip for which, after a short period in office, the hon. Gentleman should excuse me.
Very hard and difficult choices are being made all the time by parents throughout the country. The advice that I give to everyone facing such decisions, and I offer it to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, is to examine carefully, on the basis of the total information available to them, the options available and the local situation. In the Plympton case, the LEA set out the information clearly, and I believe that parents will have made their choices in the light of the knowledge derived from that. It is necessary at all times to work on the basis of what the situation is, not on the basis of night following day or assumptions based on past experience. It is the duty of all hon. Members and all those who advise parents in that position to advise them to look carefully at the current situation in the round, and not to assume that the way in which matters have operated in the past will continue into the future.

A500 (Stoke-on-Trent)

1 pm

Mr. George Stevenson: I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the proposed A500 grade separation scheme on City road and the proposed flyover scheme on Liverpool road. The schemes are extremely important not only for Stoke-on-Trent but for the midlands region and for the nation as a whole.
I shall touch briefly on the history of the A500. When the section within the city was designed in the early 1970s, the two schemes were part of that road development. The section of the A500 to which I refer was a principal road scheme, not a trunk road scheme. As such, it was, of necessity, more concerned with local rather than regional and national traffic. As the schemes were part of the original proposal, they were obviously needed at that time. However, I am sorry to say that a Labour Transport Minister cut them out of the overall development in an effort to reduce costs.
What has happened since the early and middle 1970s when the scheme was designed and built? The main change is the construction of the new A50 road in Stoke-on-Trent. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that it is one of the last pieces in the jigsaw of the A50 improvement from the M1 south of Derby to the M6 in Stoke-on-Trent. That is a much-needed development, and the A50 in Stoke-on-Trent is one of the last components of the east-west link. Therefore, the A500 and the A50 form part of a strategic trunk road network that is important not only for the midlands but for the country as a whole—so much so, that the Government recently made the A500 a trunk road.
The A50, whose construction recently concluded, is being used as an alternative to the M6. As a result, there has been severe additional congestion at those junctions. It is not unusual to see—particularly at peak times—traffic backed up for a mile or so in each direction. Because of their geographical location and the fact that the two roads are now part of the trunk road network, the regional and national trunk road and motorway systems in the area are subject to double corking at two bottlenecks. The benefits of a much-improved local roads infrastructure have been seriously compromised, and the situation will continue to deteriorate.
I stress to my hon. Friend the importance of the two schemes to public transport. Public transport in Stoke-on-Trent is suffering serious problems. Stoke-on-Trent is damn near 13 miles long—it is a linear city with six town centres—so public transport problems are enormous. The two junctions on the A500 straddle the main arterial bus corridors in the area. Unless we tackle congestion by establishing the schemes as quickly as possible, there will be no prospect in the foreseeable future of achieving public transport improvements consistent with the Government's positive and forward-looking public transport policies. The city's far-reaching public transport plans will also be compromised if the schemes are not implemented.
There are even wider implications in the public transport sector. Because of the city's topography, the new A50 road is not being used to divert traffic from central areas to give a greater priority to public transport. Motorists are deterred from using the new road outside the town centres by congestion at the two junctions.

The development of transport integration has also been affected, including road, rail, freight and canal networks—a central canal system is immediately adjacent to the two junctions. Integration of the west coast main line, freight facilities, canal systems and public transport will not be possible unless the two junctions are improved.
Perhaps the most serious concern is the effect on local economic development. The A50 and A500 corridor contains significant land development opportunities that must be seized for the benefit of the north Staffordshire area in general and Stoke-on-Trent in particular. The area depended traditionally on a pretty narrow manufacturing base, comprising the pottery and coal industries. I worked in both of those industries, but I would be hard pressed to get a job today. There is not a single coal mine remaining in Staffordshire or in Stoke-on-Trent. The last local colliery at Hem Heath was closed with the direct loss of 1,400 jobs—if we multiply that figure three times, we can ascertain the number of jobs lost indirectly—and at an estimated cost of about £60 million a year to the local economy. The pits have disappeared.
About 15 years ago, the pottery industry employed 56,000 people. Today, the figure is closer to 20,000. In 1998, the industry lost 2,500 jobs in the area, and the difficulties continue today. I am not making a special plea, as a constituency Member of Parliament, for a particular scheme here or there; these schemes are essential if we are to develop the A500 and A50 corridor using the development land available, if we are to attract the necessary investment to our area, and if we are to produce the integrated transport system that north Staffordshire needs. However, I fear that that essential development will continue to be blocked while the schemes at those two critical junctions remain uncompleted. The attitude of potential investors in the area will not improve while they know that access to the regional and national trunk and motorway network is effectively compromised because of increasing congestion.
The roads review gave top priority in the west midlands to those two schemes, but the Highways Agency, as it recently reported to the city council, placed the schemes 37th out of the 39 schemes on which it is working. That is simply not acceptable. I have met with officials from the Highways Agency and with my noble Friend Lord Whitty, as have my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). The agency says that it needs statutory instruments to be enacted, which of course it does. I call on my hon. Friend the Minister to use her influence to ensure that that process is begun immediately.
Nobody can guarantee that there would be no objections to the schemes, but I argue strongly that there is little prospect of objections. First, on land take, I understand that one or two small pieces of land would need to be purchased for the schemes, and one of those is owned by what was British Rail and is now presumably Railtrack. I do not anticipate any problems with the purchase of that land. No houses or properties are involved, so there would be no objections.
Secondly, on objections from the wider community in the area, we have argued throughout the roads review about the importance of the schemes. We were delighted that they were given top priority in the west midlands and


survived that scrutiny. Throughout that review there was massive publicity in the area, and as far I know there have been no objections from the wider community.
I suspect that the main reason that the Highways Agency is being somewhat dilatory is that the Department of Trade and Industry is urging the city council and the private sector to invest in the area to create jobs, but the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions objects to that development because there is insufficient road capacity in the area. If my information is correct, which I suspect it is, we are between a rock and a hard place, and we could do with a little of that joined-up thinking of which the Government are rightly proud.
In conclusion, the schemes are vital not only for the area, but for the region and the nation. The arguments in favour of the schemes are fully in line with Government policy on investment, jobs, public transport, the environment and the targeting of resources specifically on schemes, such as these, which give maximum overall benefit. I therefore say to my hon. Friend the Minister that the arguments are overwhelming. It would be reasonable for her to use her good offices to ensure that the procedures necessary for the schemes to go ahead are implemented immediately so that they can be completed without any further undue delay.

Mr. Mark Fisher: I am grateful to my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) for his kindness in allowing me to make a short speech. I congratulate him on his success in securing the debate.
As my hon. Friend said, this issue has been a problem for the economy and our city's life ever since Lord Rodgers, then Secretary of State for Transport, secured the development of the A500. On the bridge that links Stoke city centre with the railway station, there is a large plaque to Lord Rodgers, not only giving thanks to him for what he achieved but serving as a reproach because, as my hon. Friend said, the work was never completed and the lack of the two grade separations has caused enormous problems.
As my hon. Friend also said, that is not just a local problem, but a regional and possibly even a national problem because east-west road communications on our island have always been poor. There is a 100-mile gap between the motorway that links Manchester and Leeds and the M6. The dual carriageway on the A50 that now links the M6 and the M1 completes an east-west link, but traffic comes to a grinding halt when it hits the A500. That affects not only our city but the wider economy, so the matter is of considerable importance.
We are close to resolving the problem, thanks to the efforts of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and its Ministers, but we are anxious that there should be no further delay. Tenders have gone out in European journals; substantial contractors are seriously interested; the finance exists, and as my hon. Friend said, the only inhibitions about land take relate to two small areas. Above all, the Highways Agency and, in particular, local authorities are enthusiastic about the schemes. All that we need are the statutory procedures to go ahead.
My hon. Friend the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) and I ask the Minister to take an interest in that issue, to recognise its

local and national significance and to give us all the assistance that she can. if she does so, there will be another plaque relating to the grade separations, and I hope that her name will be on it and that this time we shall have completed work that has long been needed in our city.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on obtaining this Adjournment debate and on his generosity in affording my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) the opportunity to contribute.
This issue is clearly of primary importance not only to a particular area, but to the wider conurbation of north Staffordshire. As my hon. Friends have made abundantly clear, progress on tackling the traffic problems on the A500 in Stoke-on-Trent is central to the debate.
The A500 is part of the national core motorway and trunk road network. The high percentage of heavy goods vehicles—over 20 per cent.—that use that route is proof of its economic importance. The A500 is equally important in the local context. Not only is it essential for the movement of traffic within the north Staffordshire conurbation, as I have already said, but it provides access to potentially important development sites.
We are aware of the congestion on the A500, particularly at the Stoke and City road junctions, which hinders the movement of goods and people and hampers regeneration. Congestion at those junctions creates difficulties for bus operators, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South pointed out, and dangers and inconvenience for cyclists and pedestrians.
I referred to the access that the A500 provides to potentially important economic development. Successful development has already taken place at Festival park, and major new proposals in Etruria valley and Trentham lakes have also succeeded in attracting a variety of public, European and private sector funding. However, to maximise the opportunities created by such developments, there must be an integrated transport system allowing easy access by all forms of transport for pedestrians and cyclists to development sites and within the urban area more generally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South also pointed out.
When reviewing the roads programme last year, we assessed all 147 schemes from the previous roads programme against the five criteria of the new approach to appraisal: safety, economy, integration, accessibility and the environment. After much detailed scrutiny, 37 schemes were included in the targeted programme of improvements, announced in July 1998. The A500 City road/Stoke road scheme was one of the 37. I hope that that demonstrates to my hon. Friends the high priority that the Government attach to tackling the problems of north Staffordshire. Like them, we see the main benefit of the scheme as being economic regeneration, but it will also allow the more efficient operation of bus services, and safer movements for cyclists and pedestrians.
It is not the case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said, that the scheme is not being advanced. The list to which he referred, which was announced by our noble Friend Lord Whitty on


10 December 1998, did indeed contain the programme for the next stages of schemes in the targeted programme of improvements, but the position of this particular scheme in that list is no indication of when it will be taken forward. It was not a list of prioritisation.

Mr. Stevenson: Lord Whitty followed up our meeting with a letter to north Staffordshire, saying that he could not envisage the schemes starting for up to seven years from now. Can my hon. Friend give us some reassurance about the time scale involved?

Ms Jackson: I was just about to come on to that point. Regrettably, I was not present at the meeting with our noble Friend Lord Whitty, to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am aware that the Government have given a clear commitment that the schemes that have been named will certainly be started within, I understand, seven years. Of course, the money for their completion is also clearly committed.
As I was about to say, the next statutory stage for the A500 scheme for order publication will be 2000–01. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said, the Highways Agency published a notice in the Official Journal on 23 March seeking expressions of interest from consultants to design the scheme. The agency anticipates letting a contract for this consultancy in the summer.
My hon. Friends will also be pleased to hear that the Highways Agency is looking to introduce an innovative procurement process, which should speed up the processing of the scheme through to completion. The agency is still working on the details of this new approach, but the key feature is that the scheme will be progressed in partnership with the city council. The design consultants will be asked to carry out transportation studies that embrace both trunk road and local road issues. I am delighted that the city council has recently agreed a joint approach to such studies and a contribution of £25,000.
As I said, the Highways Agency is looking to introduce innovative procurement processes—namely, the Stoke pathfinder project. The key feature of this will be that the consultants will be involved in discussions with not only the Highways Agency but the local authority; the scheme will be developed in partnership with the city council; and design and construction will be taken forward by way of a joint venture. It is certainly my understanding that there is nothing inherent in the system that would accord

anything other than priority status to the scheme, which is so important to the area that is represented so well by my hon. Friends.
Our transport White Paper "A New Deal for Transport" emphasised that we needed to take an integrated approach to transport, another point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South. Transport should not be, nor can it be, seen in isolation. We must integrate transport policy within and between modes, with the environment, with land use planning and with policies for education, health and wealth creation. In line with this emphasis on integration, the A500 project will embrace wider transportation and regeneration issues.
As I said, the Highways Agency, its consultants and the eventual successful contractor will work closely together to ensure that trunk road and local transport matters proceed in a complementary fashion. In developing the A500, it will be necessary to assess the impact on local traffic movements, as well as the effect on the trunk road network, and to identify opportunities to improve measures for cyclists, pedestrians and public transport.
We shall expect Stoke city council and, indeed, neighbouring authorities to reflect this approach in their local transport plans. As my hon. Friends know, local transport plans will require local authorities to set out their strategies for transport over a five-year period, together with long-term targets for improving air quality, road safety, public transport and the reduction of road traffic.
We will expect local transport plans to be well integrated with local development plans and other key strategies in the area. We will therefore be asking the local authorities to explain in their plans how their proposals complement the A500 scheme in ways that meet local transport plan objectives and contribute to safety, improved accessibility for all, environmental improvement and economic growth.
My hon. Friends will be aware that we have allocated £1.725 million to the north Staffordshire package for 1999–2000, an increase of more than 100 per cent. on the 1998–99 allocation. That brings to nearly £5 million the allocations for local transport in north Staffordshire since 1995. This allocation will allow the local authorities to progress measures that improve public transport—through, for example, a bus quality partnership, the provision of better information through the city council's exciting advanced transport telematics project, and improvements in safety.
The allocation, together with the commitment that we have shown to improvements to the A500, demonstrates the importance that we attach to tackling transport problems in north Staffordshire in an integrated fashion, given their importance for the regeneration that is so vital for this part of the country.

Chelmsford Prison

Mr. Simon Burns: I am very pleased to have this opportunity to debate a matter of grave concern to me and my constituents—namely, the prison in Chelmsford—relatively soon after the publication of the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons entitled, "Report of an Unannounced Short Inspection 20–22 October 1998".
The background to the on-going problems in the prison were highlighted in the report by the chief inspector of prisons after a full inspection carried out in September 1996. Two years later, the chief inspector carried out an unannounced further inspection, and the first paragraph of the preface to his subsequent report starkly explains the chronic situation at the prison. He states unequivocally:
If I was a member of the staff of HMP Chelmsford, or any part of the Prison Service with any responsibility for the prison, I would not feel very proud about this report. I described what I had to report after our inspection in September 1996 as 'dreadful'. Too much that is dreadful still remains … at least young offenders are now held separately from adults, but their regime leaves a lot to be desired. To be fair to the staff of the prison, many other aspects are beyond their control, such as the turnover of Governors, the speed and numbers of prisoners who pass through local prisons, and the continued absence of capital funding to build an acceptable gatehouse and reception area.
I hope that the Minister agrees that that is a fairly damning indictment of what has been going on, but I believe that it is important to learn from the mistakes of the past, not simply to dwell on them. We must ensure that positive action is taken to improve the running of the prison and enhance the quality of life of the prisoners and the working environment of the staff.
The issues are far too serious to be treated in a partisan, party political way. I for one have no intention of seeking to turn the problem into a petty, political party squabble.

Mr. Alan Hurst: I know that the hon. Gentleman is very aware of the circumstances surrounding the murder of Christopher Edwards in Chelmsford prison and the chain of human error, misjudgment and lack of system which led to that extremely unfortunate and tragic death. Since the inquiry into it, has the hon. Gentleman been able to assess whether there are now systems in place that recognise the mentally ill when they are in Chelmsford prison, and that those people are protected by them? Will he be seeking an assurance from the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), that this matter is being assessed and monitored?

Mr. Burns: In a way, the hon. Gentleman has anticipated the next paragraph of my speech.
Although the terrible tragedy to which the hon. Gentleman has referred occurred in a prison in my constituency, it was the family of the hon. Gentleman's constituent, including his parents, who still live in the constituency, who were most directly affected by what happened. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall certainly be referring to a number of the problems that he has highlighted in his intervention. I am sure that the Minister will seek to address some of them when she replies.
Probably the most important problem to arise at the prison, which has focused so much attention on it, was the tragic murder of Christopher Edwards by another prisoner on his first night in the prison. The chief inspector's report states in paragraph 2.39:
We spent some time on the induction wing and on three separate occasions tested the cell call system.
I find it inexplicable and unforgivable that the chief inspector should have to report after his unannounced visit:
We found it was working but that staff failed to answer any of the cell calls we made.
What is the point of having a cell call system if nobody will pay the blindest bit of attention to any calls for help from prisoners using that system? That is unforgivable and I trust that the Minister will be able to tell the House what is being done to ensure that the system works physically and in practice by officers responding to calls for help.
Rightly, the chief inspector states that that failure to respond was
totally unacceptable. Staff should respond to the cell call system and check the welfare of their prisoners frequently.
I am sure that nobody in the House would disagree with that.
Although the report does not specify the explanation for that crass failure, in the light of the Edwards tragedy I would appreciate it if the Minister could tell me whether any reasons have been given for an abject failure of a critical part of the system.
As for cleanliness and hygiene, I find it unacceptable that the chief inspector found a cell infested with mites from the pigeon population and pigeon corpses lodged in gutters and poky alleyways. Pigeons are roosting on A wing and, apart from that, it is unacceptable that the ventilation fans have caused the sucking of dust, excreta, feathers and the occasional bird into the wing. Why were no mesh guards placed over the ventilation fans? Those conditions are more reminiscent of Victorian times rather than the approach of the new millennium. That is unforgivable.
I am concerned that the holding room was dirty at the time of the inspection, with a strong smell of urine. To my mind, it is demeaning for prisoners not to have any proper privacy when using the lavatory by the holding room, though one fully appreciates that security must be an important consideration. However, surely a system could be devised that afforded some human dignity to individuals without a gross lack of privacy.
In general, the entire process of reception should be greatly improved. As the chief inspector stated in his report:
Standards in reception were some of the lowest we have seen in any local prison.
He described the procedures as "appalling failures". He has categorically stated of those procedure that "this was not acceptable." I could not agree more.
Equally scathing are the chief inspector's comments on health care services in prison, a matter raised by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) in his intervention. As a former Health Minister, I can fully understand the problems, though I do not necessarily accept that they should be allowed to continue within our prisons. However, I accept that there is always a tension between


the Department of Health, the Home Office and the Prison Service over the question of health care within prisons. Sadly, that is not unique to the present Government. It applied also to the previous Government and the Government before that. It boils down to a tension over the funding of health care in prisons. I do not say that to score points. I am stating what is a fact under Governments of all political complexions.
I urge the Minister and the Prison Service to give careful consideration to the problems and the recommendations and to take positive action to improve things, particularly in respect of mental health care. Everybody knows for a fact that there are many people among the prison population who are suffering from mental health problems who arguably should not be in a conventional prison but rather in a secure unit where proper and dedicated medical treatment could be provided for them.
In chapter 5 of the report, the chief inspector deals with the management of the prison. On reading the report, one gets a sinking feeling about low morale among staff and an undervaluation of the work that is carried out at the prison. The Minister is probably aware that during the past 10 days prison officers at Chelmsford have passed votes of no confidence in both the governor and the chief inspector of prisons. I am not convinced that that is conducive to improving the situation at the prison, where everyone should be working together rather than in conflict to improve conditions. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us of her views on that situation.
On 11 March, I asked the Under-Secretary with responsibility for prisons, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), what action the Government plan to take to deal with and rectify the problems and to respond to the recommendations that were set out in the chief inspector's report. The Minister encouragingly replied:
Work has already begun to address the issues raised in the report including the installation of a new cell call bell system and the building of a new reception area.
He added:
The Prison Service will, within 30 working days of the date of publication of the report, prepare an action plan addressing all the recommendations made by the Chief Inspector."—[Official Report, 11 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 333.]
I welcome that, but will the Minister give us an assurance that all the recommendations will be implemented? What checks and monitoring will be carried out to ensure that the recommendations and the action plan are implemented?
Paragraph 5 of the report states that the prison budget for 1996–97 was £9.02 million. It was reduced to £8.6 million in this financial year and it is to be reduced further by £348,000 in the year 2001–02. Would the Minister be prepared to seek to reverse these reductions in the financing of the prison in the light of the problems that have been highlighted by the chief inspector's report?
I am sure that the Minister will accept that historically—certainly since I have been a Member representing the Chelmsford area—and as echoed in the report, there has always been overcrowding at Chelmsford prison. I accept that, two or three years ago, two new wings were built inside the perimeter of Chelmsford

prison to help to overcome the problem of overcrowding, but it has persisted, which is causing strain and tension within the prison. What can the Minister do to try to overcome that problem and the other problem identified in the report—significant transfers or discharges from the establishment? That practice does so much to undermine attempts to provide long-term training and offending behaviour courses. Such problems inevitably cause disruption to the smooth running of any prison.
Does the Minister agree that the time has come to alleviate the chronic problem of overcrowding in the main prison in the county, perhaps by building another prison in Essex?
I will listen extremely carefully to the Minister's reply and I hope that she agrees that the problems at Chelmsford go far beyond excepted practice; that far more should and needs to be done, following the 1996 report; and that the time for talking is over. A properly planned, properly monitored programme must be implemented to ensure that none of us in Chelmsford ever has to read another damning and shaming report from Her Majesty's inspector of prisons, as we had to do in 1996 and as we have had to this month.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on securing this debate on a very serious matter. All Members of Parliament should have an interest in what goes on in prisons, but, as Member of Parliament for the constituency containing Chelmsford prison, he has a particular and obvious interest. I welcome the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) to the Chamber.
The report published on 9 March by the chief inspector of prisons following his inspection of Chelmsford prison last October contained a number of serious criticisms. Personally, I found the report quite shocking and I can well understand the anger and concern of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford about what has been done and what is going to be done. The governor, Alison Gomme, and the area manager responsible for Chelmsford are determined to build on any progress that has been made, and to do so in the coming months and years.
As with all inspections, the Prison Service will consider all the chief inspector's recommendations carefully and produce an action plan setting out in some detail its responses and how it intends to take them forward. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the action plan will be produced within 30 working days of the publication of the report and, as is the case with all the chief inspector's reports, will be monitored by line management, with reports being made to Ministers at the nine and 15 month stage. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the action plan will be discussed with him.
I shall deal briefly with some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns and try to answer as many of them as possible. He asked why staff were not answering the cell call bells, which prisoners use in case of emergency. The events leading to the tragic death of Christopher Edwards were a matter of deep regret for the Prison Service and the other agencies concerned with his welfare. The criticisms of the Prison Service in that regard are serious and are being addressed. The inquiry into the death of Christopher


Edwards established that the cell call system—which was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree—had not been working and that staff would not have been aware if he had called for assistance.
A new cell call system, which can be centrally monitored for response times, is being installed as part of a major electrical upgrade at Chelmsford. That work should be completed by May, but the governor was herself appalled to hear of the chief inspector's findings and has given clear instructions to staff that they must respond to cell call bells promptly. I have to say that I agree with every word that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford said about the fact that staff did not respond to those calls promptly.
Prisoners have also been reminded of their responsibility to use the system sensibly. It is being closely monitored by the manager of each wing of the prison and, on a regular basis, by senior management. The panel that inquired into the death of Christopher Edwards is to return to Chelmsford later this year to assess progress and the proper working of the cell call system will be an important part of that follow-up visit.
The hon. Gentleman raised genuine concerns about the prison's reception area and gatehouse. Although it has not been possible to provide a new gatehouse, work on a new reception facility began in December and will be completed by the summer. In the meantime, the old reception facility has been decorated, but it would be inappropriate to spend any significant funds on it because it will soon be taken out of use.
The reception and induction wing has been brought under the control of one manager, who is conducting a complete review of the reception and induction process in preparation for the new unit. Many of the prisoners arriving at Chelmsford will be experiencing prison for the first time. The work that has been put in hand should ensure that their reception takes place in decent conditions and that they are given all the information and assistance that they need to settle into the regime of the establishment from the beginning.
A new health care standard has been developed for reception procedures and that should underpin more effectively the continuity of care between the community and prison. The aim is to ensure that the mental health needs of prisoners are identified at an early stage, that staff are appropriately trained and that all relevant information about those with such needs is shared between the agencies responsible for their care and custody.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concerns about the provision of health care at Chelmsford and, in particular, the care of mentally ill prisoners. That, as he knows, is a difficult area for prisons throughout the country. Prisoners suffering from mental disorder who require specialist medical treatment or social support should receive it from the health and personal social services. The commencement of criminal proceedings should not prevent or delay access to appropriate care and treatment.
The Home Office has provided general guidance to those working in the criminal justice system on how those principles might be put into practice through effective inter-agency co-operation. It has also provided funds for a number of mental health assessment schemes at magistrates courts and encourages prison doctors to identify prisoners who are so mentally disordered that

they need hospital treatment and to recommend their transfer accordingly. I fully accept that it is not appropriate for those prisoners to be treated in prison, except on a voluntary basis pending imminent transfer.
The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about the large pigeon population, which had created a dangerous and unacceptable situation. A control programme has already been implemented and the pigeon infestation problem has, I am assured, been brought under control. All pigeon corpses have been removed from the gutters and mesh has finally been placed over the inlet for the fans.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the budget reductions imposed on Chelmsford prison. Like all prisons—and, indeed, all parts of the public service—it has been required to make efficiency savings, but, in the next financial year, it will benefit from additional resources from the settlement obtained by the Prison Service under the comprehensive spending review. The hon. Gentleman will be particularly pleased to know that, in addition, other funds have been made available to Chelmsford, which will effectively mean an increase in available resources to slightly under £8.9 million.
Funding will be provided for additional instructional officers, which will allow for an increase of 20 to 25 per cent. in prisoner places in the workshops. It should also minimise workshop closures resulting from staff sickness and annual leave. Additional funding has also been provided to extend education, which is targeting literacy and numeracy skills.
Although the hon. Gentleman referred to a rise in the population at Chelmsford, overcrowding is not a significant long-term problem. Indeed, the vast majority of prisoners in Chelmsford are in single cells. A substantial addition was made to the prison through the provision of two new wings, which opened only a few years ago. It has been necessary recently to transfer some prisoners, but that was caused by loss of accommodation due to the electrical upgrading work. There are no plans to build another prison in the West Chelmsford constituency and Chelmsford prison is expected to serve as the local prison for Essex for some time.
Finally, a word about management and staff. Staff morale at Chelmsford is at low ebb. The establishment has been subject to considerable criticism in recent months, but a largely new management team, with a determination to improve Chelmsford and address the criticisms raised in the chief inspector's report, is in place. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that continuity will help the process.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a number of changes of governor in recent years. A governor of long standing was replaced on his retirement for a short time by a temporary governor, before the current governor was appointed. The new governor, Alison Gomme, has had a period of absence on maternity leave but, during that period, continuity was ensured by temporarily promoting the deputy governor, rather than posting in a new figure. The current governor returned to duty in December, and she is committed to remaining in post for the foreseeable future and to ensuring that progress is made in tackling the problems identified by the chief inspector. The area manager responsible for Chelmsford has paid close attention to the prison, offering support and guidance where appropriate, and will continue to do so.
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that the report was a fairly damning indictment of what has been going on. However, as he said, the way forward is to learn from the mistakes of the past, rather than to dwell on them. We must ensure that positive action is taken to ensure measurable and solid improvements.
I hope that what I have set out will persuade the hon. Gentleman that the Prison Service takes the criticisms by the chief inspector seriously, and that action has been taken—and will continue to be taken—to resolve the problems of Chelmsford prison. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is pleased that Sir David Ramsbotham's team will be inspecting Chelmsford prison again in a year's time to see what progress has been made.
At the end of the introduction to the report, Sir David said:
I hope that senior management in the Prison Service will take the action required of it, to ensure that the treatment and conditions of prisoners is brought up to an acceptable standard, and that lessons really are learned from incidents that do no good to the name of the Service in the eyes of the public they have a duty to protect.
I hope that, this time next year, the hon. Gentleman is in a position to secure a debate following the report to discuss improvements. I hope that all of us together will be able to ensure that prisoners at Chelmsford are served well, and that the people of his constituency feel that the prison is being dealt with properly.

It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Post-devolution Responsibilities

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Wales after devolution. [78059]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): After devolution the Secretary of State for Wales will be a member of the United Kingdom Cabinet, with responsibilities for ensuring that the needs and interests of Wales are taken into account in its decisions.

Mr. Winterton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his brief reply. I assume it means that he will become a very junior member of a future Labour Cabinet. But will not devolution bring about a massive and unprecedented transfer of power from his office, and will not his accountability to the House, which he stressed in his reply—accountability in regard to agriculture, health, education and other matters—be minimal? How does the right hon. Gentleman feel that he will best be able to represent the interests of the people of Wales in this House, bearing in mind the limited powers that he will have?

Mr. Michael: I do not see how a representative of a party that has no Welsh representatives in the House can have the cheek to talk about power or representation.
As usual, the hon. Gentleman has made the wrong assumptions. The Secretary of State will be an important member of the Government, because the United Kingdom Cabinet will retain responsibility for all sorts of legislation affecting the people of Wales, not only in terms of England and Wales but in terms of the United Kingdom as a whole, and in wider terms. The voice of Wales will continue to be heard. What devolution will do is this: it will put decision making for people in Wales into the hands of representatives elected by the people of Wales to sit in the Assembly. I think that that will prove a very effective way of ensuring that the people of Wales are given the best possible public service, and the best possible representation from those whom they elect.

Sir Raymond Powell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the partial responsibility of MPs, particularly Welsh MPs, for Welsh devolution and the setting up of the Welsh Assembly? I accept that my right hon. Friend's continuing membership of the Cabinet will be very valuable to the Welsh nation, but now that he has announced the date of the Assembly's first sitting, will he be kind enough to invite Welsh MPs who have not been elected to the Assembly to attend that function?

Mr. Michael: I agree that Welsh MPs, especially members of the Labour Government, have delivered to Wales an Assembly and an opportunity to be properly represented in the future. [Interruption.] I hear grumbles

from those sitting on one of the Opposition Benches. I remind them that the Labour party is the real party of Wales.
I certainly accept that the relationship that develops between the Assembly and Welsh MPs will be extremely important, and that there will need to be appropriate opportunities for members of the two bodies to meet.

Dr. Liam Fox: In his answer to the main question, the Secretary of State correctly said that he would be Secretary of State in a Union Cabinet and a Union Parliament. Does he agree that, according to that logic, Members of this Parliament should be able to question the Secretary of State on all aspects of policy, not simply reserved matters?

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman should surely accept that devolution and the establishment of a Welsh Assembly will strengthen the United Kingdom and the Union, in that appropriate decisions will be made at a Welsh level, and there will be accountability on the part of those elected by the people of Wales. As for what questions are appropriate for the Secretary of State for Wales, I think that legislation and the rules of the House of Commons will determine that.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: What is the answer?

Mr. Michael: It is absolutely clear in the legislation. The hon. Gentleman obviously has not been following events in the House, let alone outside it.

Dr. Fox: There can be little clarity when the Secretary of State does not know what subjects the Secretary of State should answer questions on; but on a broader matter, does not the fact that hon. Members from all parts of the UK will be required to raise the taxes that the Welsh Assembly will be responsible for administering leave something of a deficit of scrutiny? How does the right hon. Gentleman intend to rectify that and to give Members of the House, who are responsible to all electors for raising taxes, a say in how that money is spent?

Mr. Michael: Yet again, the hon. Gentleman is fighting old battles. It is typical of the Conservative party's attitude to the election. Its leader in Wales, a former hon. Member, seems to be entering that campaign to try to pull the Assembly down, rather than to make it work for the people of Wales, which should be everyone's responsibility.
The hon. Gentleman should know that many issues, including much legislation and the Welsh budget, which will be voted on by Parliament are matters for the Secretary of State, on which he will answer to the House.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On that very point, will the Secretary of State confirm that one of his main responsibilities will be to secure adequate resources for the needs of the National Assembly for Wales, not least to deliver on items such as the pledge card promises that were produced in Llandudno on health and education? Will he confirm that those pledge card promises are old promises that have already been made in London?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, whoever is governing in the National Assembly in Cardiff, that money will be available—that it will be available not just to the Labour party, but for all the people of Wales, to be administered by the Assembly?

Mr. Michael: The pledges that have been made by the Labour party show what will be delivered by the Labour party. It is interesting to note what the right hon. Gentleman and his party stand for: separatism and dividing the United Kingdom, rather than strengthening the Union as well as the voice of the people of Wales. In terms of achieving the finances that are necessary for the Assembly and for Wales, I have full confidence in the present Secretary of State for Wales and in any future Labour Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I do not want to be mischievous, but I wonder whether, when he looks at his responsibilities, the Secretary of State will also look at the responsibilities of Members of Parliament? In view of what will be a big job-sharing exercise and an obvious diminution in our responsibilities, will he consider whether our salaries should be lowered?

Mr. Michael: I note that my hon. Friend may need to declare a lack of personal interest in the subject. I am sure that he does not intend to be mischievous, but I can assure him that the partnership between Members of Parliament and Members of the Assembly will be important. It is important that both Members of the Assembly and Members of Parliament work very hard to ensure that it is a positive and creative relationship. I know that many Members of Parliament, including some who were not necessarily enthusiasts for an Assembly, have already started to build such a relationship with those in their constituencies who hope to represent the same party in the Assembly.

Job Losses

Miss Julie Kirkbride: If he will make a statement about recent job losses in Wales. [78060]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): Although recent job losses in manufacturing in Wales are extremely regrettable, overall the Welsh economy continues to grow, and last year Wales had a net gain of 21,000 jobs.

Miss Kirkbride: Has there not been a turnaround in the number of jobs being created and lost in Wales? Is not part of the problem the fact that the Government have introduced the minimum wage and adopted the working time regulations? This afternoon, the House will hear more about regulations to be imposed in relation to family crisis leave and parental leave. Every employer and federation agrees that all those things add costs, burdens and regulations to business. They are unwelcome and will add to the problem in the Principality of a lack of employment and job opportunities.

Mr. Hain: I cannot blame the hon. Lady for being out of touch with business opinion in Wales, but she is. Business in Wales enthusiastically welcomes the Government's policies and is working in partnership with us to support our initiatives.
I am pleased to be able to announce three new schemes to assist small businesses in Wales, many of which were decimated by Tory Governments. The first is a £2 million Welsh Development Agency small loans fund. The second is a £2 million British steel industry small equity packages and loans fund. The third is a £6 million WDA and National Westminster bank venture capital fund to finance innovative developments that focus on new technology. We are supporting businesses in Wales—just as the Tories destroyed their prospects.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the 36 months to February, unemployment in Llanelli fell by 25 per cent., and by about the same amount in neighbouring constituencies? However, in the 12 months to February, the drop has been minuscule in Llanelli, while in surrounding constituencies, including the Minister's own, there has been an increase. Does this not show that manufacturing industry is beginning to feel the pressure of recession and contraction? Will the Welsh Office make urgent representations to the Bank of England to seek a further substantial reduction in interest rates to reduce the pressure?

Mr. Hain: My right hon. Friend is correct. However, unemployment under the Labour Government has fallen to the lowest levels in living memory. At least a quarter of the world is in recession and world growth has halved. Our manufacturers are having a difficult time, but the Government are supporting them in every way possible. There was a net growth of 21,000 jobs last year, despite the fact that most of the world is in a difficult economic situation.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I am sure that the Minister is as concerned as I am by the loss of manufacturing jobs. On his recent visit to the United States of America, was the Secretary of State able to persuade a manufacturing investor to come on to the site at Ystradgynlais, where, in April, 750 people will lose their jobs at the largest manufacturing plant in my constituency? Would the Minister visit the plant with me to give some hope to employees who are reaching the end of their tether?

Mr. Hain: I have visited the plant recently, and I have been in close contact with the stewards. I have also been responsible for setting up a task force that is carrying through a nine-point action plan to provide alternative job and training opportunities. The Lucas workers suffered a grievous blow when their jobs were withdrawn at very short notice, but we are working to increase investment in the Swansea valley. We were able to announce 500 more high-tech, high quality jobs at the bottom of the valley last year. We have raised the future of the site with the owners, TRW and Lucas, in conversations in America and here.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is my hon. Friend as surprised as I am that unemployment in Wales has at last been discovered by the Conservatives? Does he, like me, regret the fact that it was not discovered 20 years earlier? Given the prospect of job losses in west Wales, can the Minister assure us that the resources needed in Wales will be made available so that we may


exploit the advantages of the welcome introduction of objective 1 status, on which the Welsh Office is to be congratulated?

Mr. Hain: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is selective amnesia on the Tory Benches about the devastating impact of Tory policies on jobs and businesses in Wales. We are driving forward new job opportunities in the Swansea area. Only yesterday, the Secretary of State announced an initiative supporting Visteon in safeguarding and protecting hundreds of jobs in the area. We are also working with the Swansea Bay partnership and others to assist south-west Wales. I am confident that Wales will be able to draw down the funds that it needs under objective 1 status, which has been admirably won by the leadership of the Labour Government.

Genetically Modified Crops

Mr. Norman Baker: What mechanisms exist to communicate representations made to his Department concerning genetically modified crops to other Departments. [78061]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): The Welsh Office maintains regular contact with other Departments that have an interest in genetically modified crops. Any issues arising from representations made on the subject are communicated to and discussed with those Departments as appropriate.

Mr. Baker: Given that the Welsh Assembly will have responsibility for agricultural matters, will the Minister clarify for the House what responsibility the Welsh Assembly will have for licensing and approving GM crops in trial sites and elsewhere? Will the Welsh Assembly have some flexibility in dealing with the matter? If so, will the Minister guarantee that the same environmental safeguards as currently apply across the UK, or even stronger ones, will apply in Wales under the Welsh Assembly?

Mr. Jones: The use of genetically modified techniques is a fast-moving science with huge potential benefits. There may be risks—which of course need careful assessment—but the Government's priority is to safeguard public health and the environment. Ensuring that the risks are properly assessed will be a United Kingdom function rather than a Welsh Assembly function.

Mr. Huw Edwards: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the very serious concern in my constituency about two applications—by AgrEvo UK and Pioneer Genetique SARL, in collaboration with Monsanto—to release genetically modified organisms, in relation to oilseed rape, in Monmouthshire? May I assure him that there is great concern that adequate safeguards have not been applied, and about the effect that such a release might have on biodiversity? May I assure him also that I have formally objected to the applications to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales?

Mr. Jones: I can well understand that there are concerns, and that my hon. Friend shares them. The Prime Minister

has established a ministerial group to oversee developments on the subject. As a first step, the group has commissioned a thorough examination of our regulatory framework. The group will report soon.
I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that, if we are to assess the environmental impact of genetically modified crops—which are likely to become an increasingly common sight, if not in the United Kingdom, then in other countries—we have to undertake properly monitored and independently assessed field trials, to ensure that we get the best scientific knowledge.

Council Tax

Mr. Simon Hughes: If he will list the band D council tax rate for each local authority for 1999–2000 and the percentage increase in each case for (i) 1998–99 and (ii) 1997–98. [78062]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): As the information requested is too extensive for an oral answer, I have arranged for the hon. Gentleman to be sent the details in tabular form, and for a copy to be placed in the Library.

Mr. Hughes: First, will the Minister tell the House why the council tax figures for Wales were given to the press before they were given to Parliament? Will he then explain why council tax increases—which, in December, Ministers predicted would average 7.5 per cent.—turned out to be about 8.5 per cent.? Will he also explain why, on average, the increases are higher in Wales than in England? Will he also explain why—for the second year in a row under the Labour Government—the increases are more than twice the rate of inflation for everyone except those who are on council tax benefit? Whom should Labour voters blame—local councils, or Labour Ministers and the Labour Westminster Government?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman's carping is very familiar to the House. The reality is that we have seen an extremely good settlement for local government in Wales—the best for very many years. Central Government support for local government is 4.8 per cent., which is well above the rate of inflation. Government support has also allowed a record increase in service spending—15 per cent. over 3 years, and a £145 million increase in the next year alone. That is more money for schools, more money for social services—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Gentleman does not want to hear this—it will adversely affect the Liberal Democrats' likelihood of winning any elections—but additional resources of £300 per person in Wales over the next three years come as very good news indeed.
Tax incre0ases in Wales are lower than they were last year. Moreover, tax levels in Wales are far lower than they are in England, although service spending in Wales is significantly higher. It is a good deal for Welsh local council tax payers.

Mr. Llew Smith: Would the Minister care to comment on the formula which determines how much central Government money goes to local authorities? That formula discriminates against the poorest communities in Wales and puts authorities such


as mine in Blaenau Gwent at a massive disadvantage. I accept that we inherited the formula from the previous Government, but will the Minister give a commitment to look at it again so that the poorest communities get the biggest amount of money from central Government?

Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. The Secretary of State and I met local government leaders, including those from my hon. Friend's constituency, in the past few days. Although we have agreed a formula with Welsh local government, it may well be unfair particularly towards areas such as the one represented by my hon. Friend. We agree that we need to work towards a new formula which better reflects real spending needs. Moving towards that formula is likely to take more than one year and the Secretary of State has, therefore, indicated that we need to address the anomalies to which my hon. Friend referred. Hopefully we will be able to do that in the next financial year.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Mk): Is this not just another example of Labour pandering to the rich and clobbering the poor? Does the Minister not realise that the tax cuts being given to the richest in society are being paid for by the poor of Blaenau Gwent and Holyhead, in my constituency? Why does not the Minister ensure that there is more money from central Government for local authorities instead of making the poor local taxpayers pay for tax cuts for the rich?

Mr. Jones: The formula is agreed by local government across Wales, including the hon. Gentleman's area. We have agreed that we need to reform the formula. The hon. Gentleman must accept that money does not grow on trees. If we take money from one pot for use elsewhere, that money has to be denied to existing spending priorities such as health.

Mr. Alan Clark: On a point of order, Madam Speaker—

Madam Speaker: Order. I can take points of order only after questions and statements.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The Minister has just said that this is a good settlement for Wales. When will he join the real world? In Blaenau Gwent the council tax increase will be over 13 per cent., in Anglesey it will be 11.9 per cent., in Merthyr it will be 11.4 per cent., in Powys it will be 10.2 per cent., in Rhondda it will be 12.2 per cent. and in Wrexham it will be over 10 per cent—all this at a time when people are facing a standstill in their pay, or increases of 2 to 3 per cent.
One group who may be able to pay the council tax increases this year will be Members of the Welsh Assembly. I understand that an announcement is being made at 3.30 pm today—at the end of questions—about the rate at which Members of the Welsh Assembly will be paid. Why was that statement not made this morning so that hon. Members could have questioned the Minister about it? We now have to wait a whole month before we can scrutinise the pay of Members of the Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Jones: This is a good settlement for Wales for the reasons I have given. It allows local government to spend

more money on schools and social services. It is considerably more money than was ever allowed by the Government supported by the hon. Gentleman.

Steel Industry

Mr. Paul Flynn: What new proposals he has to improve the competitive position of the Welsh steel industry. [78063]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): With the world collapse in the demand for steel the Government's commitment to the economic stability that our policies have already achieved is even more important in improving the competitiveness of the Welsh steel industry.

Mr. Flynn: The recent record of the Welsh steel industry is one of the great unsung success stories of industry. More steel is being produced in Wales than ever before. There is a 25 per cent. increase in the sales of Welsh steel and nearly half of all the steel being produced in the United Kingdom is made in Wales. In spite of that, Welsh steel makers are facing hostile and unfair competition which has brought about the regrettable job losses today in Newport and west Wales. Will the Minister redouble his efforts to guarantee that the Welsh steel industry has not merely a proud, successful past but a brilliant future?

Mr. Hain: Yes, I can reassure my hon. Friend that we will do exactly that. We are working closely with British Steel to provide technology and training support and with the European Commission to tackle discriminatory dumping measures and illegal use of state aids. The British steel industry—especially the industry in Wales—is an example to the world and we want to work with it to protect its future and safeguard the jobs in it, despite a massive reduction in the demand for steel world wide.

Mr. Ian Bruce: What representations is the Welsh Office making to the Treasury to ensure that the euro does not continue to be devalued and that the Bank of England sets the interest rates that are right for British industry?

Mr. Hain: We have the lowest long-term interest rates for 40 years and mortgage rates are the lowest for 33 years. Compare that with the Tory Government's period of office, when interest rates were at record levels, the steel industry was badly hit and other businesses in Wales and throughout Britain were devastated.

Mr. Barry Jones: May I tell my hon. Friend that Shotton steelworks is to lose 150 jobs even though it is competitive, productive, breaks all records and has a loyal work force? Can I persuade him to tell the arrogant, faceless bureaucrats of Brussels that the assisted area status that we have should not be lost? Will he remind them that in 1980 we lost 8,000 steel jobs overnight and that we have yet to rebuild our economy, so we need assisted area status to the end of the century and beyond?

Mr. Hain: I am aware that the steel industry in Shotton is grateful for my hon. Friend's continued hard work on


its behalf. We are working closely with the industry to ensure that it has a positive future, and to ensure that the measures about which he complained are tackled as soon as possible.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Is the Minister aware that the Treasury proposal for an energy tax would hit the British steel industry and British Steel in particular extraordinarily hard? Recent figures suggest that the Government propose a discount of £5 million for a tax that will cost British Steel £200 million. In the light of all that has been said about the extraordinarily difficult competitive position of British Steel, will the Minister guarantee that the energy tax will not be imposed on it in that discriminatory way?

Mr. Hain: We will certainly not impose any tax, let alone an energy tax, in a discriminatory way. I am aware of the problems that high energy users, such as steel, face. For that reason, the Deputy Prime Minister is meeting to consider and consult on the matter. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will also be consulting on it. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order: it is far too noisy.

Concessionary Transport

Ann Clwyd: How many representations he has received on concessionary transport fares for pensioners in Wales in the last year. [78064]

Mr. Don Touhig: How many representations he has received on concessionary transport fares for pensioners in Wales. [78065]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): The Government's commitment to half bus fares for Welsh pensioners this year and free fares within two to three years has been widely welcomed throughout Wales. Following the transfer of functions, the National Assembly will be able to pursue that policy.

Ann Clwyd: It is very good news for the pensioners of Wales that the Welsh Assembly, under Labour control, will introduce free concessions for travel within two to three years. May I remind my right hon. Friend that many pensioners in Labour-controlled authorities throughout Wales already enjoy half fare concessions, including those in my local authority of Rhondda Cynon Taff? What pensioners want in addition is an improvement in the quality and frequency of bus services throughout Wales. What can he do to assist those vital social bus services for the people and pensioners of Wales?

Mr. Michael: I am pleased to pay tribute to Welsh local government, particularly to the Labour authorities that push such policies forward, and to the co-operation that we have received from the Welsh Local Government Association. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that I have provided new funding for a massive increase in the provision of socially necessary bus services: £5 million in 1999–2000, securing 16 million bus kilometres, or in real money, 10 million bus miles. I am grateful in particular

to the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), for the way in which he has pushed the policy forward.

Mr. Touhig: May I tell my right hon. Friend that the 12,000 pensioners in my constituency will welcome half-fare travel? On top of the cut in VAT on fuel, the £100 winter fuel allowance and the ending of eye test charges for pensioners, it shows that the Government are delivering for pensioners. Will he ensure that the scheme will be simple, with the minimum of form filling for pensioners, local authorities and transport operators?

Mr. Michael: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. The scheme needs to be simple and straightforward. As he said, it is another example of Labour delivering in office.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Howard Flight: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 31 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I was in Belfast together with the Taoiseach, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and leaders of all the parties in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Flight: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that the Chancellor's written reply about who leaked the Social Security Committee draft report meets the requirements for openness in the code of conduct for Ministers?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I am satisfied.

Mr. Richard Burden: My right hon. Friend knows of the massive pressure on my constituents and the whole of the west midlands from continuing uncertainty about BMW's investment plans for the Longbridge plant. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry spoke today to Professor Milberg, the chairman and chief executive of BMW. Can my right hon. Friend update the House on the progress of those discussions?

The Prime Minister: I have received the following information. I am pleased to say that the Secretary of State and Professor Milberg have reached agreement on the level of assistance to be provided. This will now be put to BMW's management and supervisory boards for their consideration. I am informed that their next meeting will be in the week beginning 12 April. I hope that hon. Members will understand that, at this stage, I cannot say more about the details, but I am delighted that we can now look forward to BMW making Longbridge a world-class plant for the next century, and one that will achieve the highest standards of productivity and working practices.

Mr. William Hague: May I first say to the Prime Minister that, across the House, we all


hope that the negotiations from which he has returned in Northern Ireland are successful, and that all parts of the Belfast agreement of last year will be implemented?
Secondly, may I ask him a question about Kosovo of which I have given him notice? Everyone in the House will be moved and angered by the spectacle of thousands of helpless people driven from Kosovo. We support the announcements on aid that the Government have already made. Does he agree that we need to go further, and that, with so many appeals for donations in progress, the Government should at least match, pound for pound, the money given in all voluntary donations to the charities and aid agencies concerned?

The Prime Minister: I have literally just received the letter that the right hon. Gentleman sent me. I will certainly consider the proposal that he makes. I would point out, however, that we have already given several million pounds in help for refugees and we have just committed an additional £10 million; but, of course, I will consider his request.

Mr. Hague: I recognise that the Government have already made announcements about this matter and that the Secretary of State for International Development is to make a further statement in half an hour's time. Does he agree that it is unlikely that the help offered by the Government, or by any Government so far, anywhere in the world, will be adequate to meet the problem, and that this proposal for matching funds would have the advantage of encouraging many additional donations and channelling more money directly through the aid agencies and charities concerned? Will he assure me that he will deal with it as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: I will, but I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that we have already made a massive commitment to aid for refugees. Indeed, we have been supporting the Kosovar refugees since early 1998. It is worth pointing out that there were 330,000 refugees before the NATO campaign ever began. There are, of course, more now. We are putting an extra £10 million into the latest relief effort. The European Commission has also provided additional money for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. There is an additional contribution from Germany, and more from the United States. Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey, Italy and Japan have all given money. We are sending more money and supplies out today to help the refugees and we shall carry on doing everything that we possibly can.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the distaste, embarrassment and resentment of the people of Scotland at the disavowal of the Scottish National party leader of the United Kingdom involvement in the defence of the people of Kosovo and of the opposition to the unacceptable face of Balkan nationalism?

The Prime Minister: The claim made by the SNP that economic sanctions would work in this situation is palpably ridiculous. No one believes that to be the case. The only alternatives are to take the action that we are taking or to leave these poor defenceless Kosovar

Albanian people to the mercy of the Serb killing machine. I find it appalling that the SNP should have chosen the latter course.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The Prime Minister knows that he and our forces have the support of Liberal Democrats for the action in which NATO is currently engaged. Does he agree that the test of the effectiveness of the action will be whether the Kosovar people are able to return to their homes in safety in due course?

The Prime Minister: Yes; that is precisely right. That is why it is important that we have an independent force on the ground that can help them to do that.

Mr. Beith: Whether or not Milosevic signs up to an agreement, can the Prime Minister imagine the hundreds of thousands of frightened and dispossessed people going back to their homes unless they know and are confident that there are troops to protect them? Is not the alternative to that instability and long-term refugee camps in several neighbouring countries?

The Prime Minister: Yes, and that is why it is particularly important that we carry on the action now and intensify it. I believe that the ploy yesterday by Mr. Milosevic does not impress this country and will not impress other countries. What we have to do is intensify the attacks, and that is what is happening now, today. The attacks that have been carried out today on the actual troops repressing the people in Kosovo will inflict real damage on Milosevic's tanks, artillery and the thugs carrying out the killing and repression in Kosovo. They will keep on until he agrees to come back into line with the agreements that he made last October, ensures that people are treated in a civilised way and agrees the terms that NATO has set.

Ms Sally Keeble: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in Northampton and elsewhere in the midlands will have bitter memories this Easter because it is exactly a year since the floods that devastated about 4,000 homes and killed five people? Although I recognise the enormous strides made in flood defences and warnings in the past year under the leadership of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what message does my right hon. Friend have for the people of Northampton and elsewhere who, while they want to look forward, will find that their minds are drawn back to the suffering in the past year?

The Prime Minister: A lot of steps have been taken in the past year or so to cope with the problems of floods. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister informs me that further discussions are to take place. We shall certainly keep my hon. Friend well informed of them.

Mr. Eric Forth: How does the Prime Minister reconcile bombing murderers in Kosovo with releasing murderers in Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: We are engaged in Northern Ireland in trying to implement the Good Friday peace agreement. I would have hoped that we had the wishes of


the whole House behind us on that. The idea that we can compare sitting down and trying to get the Good Friday agreement implemented with the killing of innocent civilians in Kosovo could come only from today's right-wing Conservative party.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to read the favourite newspaper of the Leader of the Opposition—the current issue of the Rotherham and South Yorkshire Advertiser? Its front page contains the statement "Good News Week" as 4,000 jobs are created in Rotherham and a Japanese company relocates there. Is it not a fact that this occurred during our watch, and that the message from the people of Rotherham is that a return not merely to the boom-and-bust years that destroyed their jobs, but to any form of Conservative control—council, regional or national—would be a disaster?

The Prime Minister: I regret to say that I have not yet read the Rotherham and South Yorkshire Advertiser, but I shall correct that omission later today. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I am delighted that he mentioned boom and bust before I did. Our policies have given us the lowest interest rates for more than 30 years and have sorted out the public finances that are a contrast to the years of Conservative decline.

Mr. Phil Willis: The Prime Minister is aware that the Liberal Democrats have welcomed and supported the Government's emphasis on further education during the past two years. That was long overdue and is much deserved. Given that the Government are putting £2,300 into every full-time training place for the new deal, how does the right hon. Gentleman explain the fact that only two thirds of that money actually arrives at the college gates and that £700 is wasted on a paper chase of contracting? Does he agree that that is a scandal and that something must be done to get the £78 million back into the colleges; and what is he going to do about it?

The Prime Minister: I gather that, on the whole, that was a supportive question. First, I will say that, in relation to the new deal money, I seem to remember that it was the Labour party that wanted the windfall tax on the utilities in order to fund the new deal, but other parties did not.
In relation to the money that is going in, I should like to look into the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given before I accept them simply because he has stated them—[Interruption.]—if he does not mind. I hope that he will agree that, of course, we want to reduce the administration as much as possible, but one of the advantages of the new deal is that it gives real quality advice to young people before they pick up whatever option is available to them. When I talk to young people about the new deal, I notice that all the things that people used to say about skivvy schemes, youth training and so on are not said about the new deal. I do not know how much of the £700 is geared to that, but I shall look into what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. John Smith: Will my right hon. Friend convey the thanks of my constituents in the Vale of Glamorgan and of all the people of Wales

to all those who worked extremely hard to secure a massive £1.8 billion in structural funds for Wales at last week's European Council summit in Berlin? Is that not the clearest illustration that the Government's policy of constructive engagement with Europe is delivering for real people—not only in Wales, but throughout the UK? Will he contrast that with the behaviour of Opposition Members, who continue to squabble with each other over Europe, when they are not taking tea with military dictators?

The Prime Minister: I cannot think what my hon. Friend is referring to.
The objective 1 status for west Wales and the valleys is a very good deal for Wales, but the most important thing about it is that it will secure funding for the next seven years and will help regeneration in the area. We achieved the best deal that this country has had for years and years at such an economic summit—not by the idle posturing that characterised the diplomacy of the Conservative party, but by serious, constructive engagement resulting in success.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to the position in Kosovo? Does he agree that President Milosevic has now succeeded in expelling much—probably most—of the indigenous population from Kosovo? Will he tell the House whether it is the policy of NATO to compel President Milosevic to reverse that position and, if so, how?

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course it is our policy to do so, and that is precisely the purpose of the attacks that are being made on him.
As for the displacement of people, again I point out that that displacement was happening long before the NATO attacks ever began. It is the most muddle-headed type of thinking imaginable, when innocent people have been driven from their homes, somehow to put the blame on the one group of people trying to defend them.
Let me read to the right hon. and learned Gentleman what some of the people from Kosovo have said. Speaking only a short time ago, Mr. Havoli, in answer to the question, "Do people in Kosovo support the NATO action?" replied, "They absolutely do." Professor Isa Ximberi said:
Everyone we have managed to be in touch with in Kosovo said their only hope was now NATO. They would be devastated if NATO now stopped without finishing the job.
Finishing the job is what we intend to do.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: At this grave time, the tragedies of world war two and the absolute horror of the holocaust teach us the terrible cost of appeasing tyranny and genocide. Does my right hon. Friend share my sadness that that lesson does not appear to have been learned by the leader of the Scottish National party?

The Prime Minister: I have already said why I think those remarks were shameless. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital that people realise that, if we were not carrying out the NATO air strikes, the campaign that Milosevic had prepared would go unchecked.


Forty thousand troops had been built up in the area over the past few months, along with 300 tanks. They were there not for a picnic, but to begin the process of ethnic cleansing, and we now know that that process began days before the NATO attacks began. The only right course for us to take is to learn the lessons of the past and not appease this dictator, but to carry on until we have brought about the proper terms of settlement.

Mr. William Hague: Next Tuesday, the savings habits of millions of people will be affected by the abolition of personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts and their replacement by a scheme that is more complicated, more costly and more highly taxed. Is the Prime Minister surprised that savings in this country are now falling?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept that about individual savings accounts. They are a far simpler scheme, not least because they do not require people to hold their money for so long, which is why they have been so widely welcomed by so many people.

Mr. Hague: Three things are clear. First, the Inland Revenue says that ISAs will be more costly for savers than the current schemes. Secondly, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have halved the most that can be saved tax free, which is, of course, a disincentive to save. Thirdly, the supermarket savings revolution that they were meant to be launching is already a flop, with Sainsbury pulling out of it—obviously "Good savings cost more at Sainsbury's" was not going to be a very attractive slogan. Should not the Government now give a last-minute reprieve to PEPs and TESSAs, before more is done to damage Britain's savings culture?

The Prime Minister: No. A host of organisations is offering ISAs. First, they are easier—money can be put in and taken out more easily than used to be possible with TESSAs and PEPs. Secondly, they will allow millions of people who were not able to save under the old PEPs and TESSAs regime to save for the first time. Thirdly, if I may say so, the savings ratio is actually increasing next year.

Mr. Hague: Well, it is 7.4 per cent. in the Treasury's current document, and it was 10.5 per cent. when the Government came to power, so it would need to increase a great deal to make up for that. The last time I asked the Prime Minister about this issue, he talked about 6 million new savers in answer to any question—I notice that we do not hear about 6 million new savers any more. Is not the truth that the Government have imposed a swingeing tax on pension funds, which is a broken promise, and that they have now abolished highly successful savings vehicles, which is a broken promise? Does the Prime Minister not understand that that damages future investment in our economy and the independence of families who want to save, and that that is a grievous mistake?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not agree with that. The right hon. Gentleman gives figures on the savings rate, but I shall tell the House the lowest savings rate in this country over the past 20 years. Under the Conservative Government, in the 1980s, the rate fell to 3 per cent—that

was the position under the Conservatives. Many more people will be able to save with ISAs. The single most important thing for people in this country—which is as a result of the Government's sorting out the doubled national debt and the £28 billion borrowing requirement—is that interest rates are at their lowest level for more than 30 years. When did the Tory Government ever achieve that?

Ms Julie Morgan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that today we should celebrate the ending of the two-tier system in the health service, the ending of GP fundholding and a return to the fundamental principle of the NHS: equal access for all? Does my right hon. Friend agree also that the problem of recruiting GPs to disadvantaged areas in Wales could be addressed by proceeding with the salaried service for doctors, which would be particularly attractive to women?

The Prime Minister: The salaried doctors scheme allows a doctor who cannot or does not wish to become a GP principal to work in general practice in a more flexible manner. My hon. Friend has campaigned on this issue for some time, and she will understand that we have made a big difference by abolishing the system whereby doctor competed against doctor and hospital competed against hospital. We have returned the national health service to the principles on which it was based.
We now know the Conservatives' plan for the national health service. They would attempt to solve health service problems by forcing more and more people to opt for private medicine. We believe that the answer to health service problems is the £21 billion that we are allocating to the NHS—which the Conservatives oppose.

Mr. David Chidgey: Does the Prime Minister recall saying at the time of the general election that the Tory cuts in mortgage interest tax relief were a tax increase? However, in the Budget, the Chancellor called his cuts in mortgage interest tax relief a spending cut. Which is correct?

The Prime Minister: The basis on which we have calculated mortgage interest tax relief is precisely the same as under the previous Government. However, I shall be fair to the hon. Gentleman. If we were to include mortgage interest relief at source as a tax change, we would also have to count the increase in child benefit, the winter fuel allowance and the minimum income guarantee for pensioners as tax changes as well; if we did that, counting all those things not as spending, but as tax, the hon. Gentleman would be quite right: it would add up to not a £4 billion Budget giveaway, but a £6 billion Budget giveaway.

Mr. Russell Brown: Tomorrow sees the introduction of the national minimum wage in this country. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the employer in my area who told me that he opposes the national minimum wage? That employer employs three young people whom he pays £65 to £70 a week and, at this time of year, expects to work 60 hours a week. Does my right hon. Friend share my dismay at


the attitude of Opposition parties who, when my hon. Friends and I sat through the night in Committee, did nothing to help the poorest paid in this country?

The Prime Minister: The minimum wage will give 2 million people in this country a pay rise and put a floor beneath their wages. We must also take into account the working families tax credit, which makes work pay and helps low-income families. It illustrates perfectly the difference between the political parties. The Conservative party proposes abolishing the working families tax credit, which would create a massive tax rise for low-income families, and abolishing the minimum wage. That would lead to the low-wage economy that the Conservatives think is the future of Britain, and we know is not.

Mr. Graham Brady: I wonder whether the Prime Minister remembers promising that his Government would maintain high standards in public life. Is he ashamed of the actions of his Secretary of State for Health, who, since 1 May 1997, has appointed to health trusts and authorities no fewer than 228 Labour councillors? Is he aware that every year, under his Government, the national health service is putting £1.4 million into the pockets of Labour councillors, and will he apologise for that?

The Prime Minister: I certainly will not apologise for having changed the system. Everyone knows what used to happen under the Tory Government. An independent system now appoints people. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would want to support the vast sum of additional spending going into his constituency under this Government which it was denied under the previous Conservative Government.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his work in ensuring the retention of objective 1 European structural funds for Merseyside to support the continued regeneration of the Merseyside economy. Will he assure me that he will do his best to ensure that Merseyside receives the full additional benefit of those funds? Does he welcome the start of the work of the North West regional development agency? Will he make efforts to ensure that those European structural funds are disbursed with the agency, so that maximum strategic use is made of the moneys available for investment in Merseyside's economy?

The Prime Minister: I should point out that we got the biggest extension of objective 1 status of any country in the European Union. The continuance of that status for Merseyside is good news. The regional development agencies will start work tomorrow, and the objective 1 status will obviously play an important part in enabling the North West RDA to carry out its remit. Our purpose is to get the right balance of public and private investment into those areas so that they can attract the jobs and industry of the future.

Mr. Archie Norman: Is the Prime Minister aware of the financial plight faced by the growing number of cystic fibrosis sufferers who are now living on into adulthood as a result of advances in medical research? Does he recall the "Health 2000"

document, published by the Labour party before the previous general election, which made a commitment to abolish prescription charges for cystic fibrosis sufferers? Will he now tell the House when his Government plan to fulfil that commitment?

The Prime Minister: I am well aware of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention. We shall carry out all our commitments in "Health 2000". I point out to him and his hon. Friends that it is as a result of our actions that we have been able to give more help to people suffering from a range of complaints. We have done better than the hon. Gentleman's Government ever did.

Angela Smith: In the same month that UNICEF and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children have launched a new campaign for the rights of children, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Basildon hospital on using £500,000 of new Government money to create separate out-patient and in-patient facilities for young children in the accident and emergency department?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I am delighted to congratulate the hospital in my hon. Friend's constituency. As a result of the new money that the Government are providing, the accident and emergency and out-patient departments of hospitals around the country will be helped. That is a result of the Government's extra investment in the health service. We are not merely getting waiting lists down, but putting into the health service the capital investment that it needs.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: As the Prime Minister fritters away the golden economic inheritance—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. Jenkin: How does the Prime Minister claim to have ended boom and bust and how can he look representatives of the road haulage industry in the face? I draw his attention to a fax from a road haulier in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency which I have received since the Budget. It says:
I am now having to battle for the survival of my company which employs 18 people.
Why does the Prime Minister not do something for the road hauliers, instead of lecturing them about their industry, about which they know far more than he does?

The Prime Minister: First, I suppose that it is an advance that I have now got Tory Members using the term "boom and bust"—we have been trying for that for a long time.
Secondly, as for the "golden legacy" that we inherited from the Conservative party, it consisted of a national debt doubled, a £28 billion borrowing requirement and inflation back in the system. This Government have cured all that. As for the road haulage industry, the fuel escalator was introduced under the previous Government—by people now sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. The best news for industry is that the Government have not merely cut corporation tax, but, yes, we have at long last ended Tory boom and bust.

Kosovo Refugees (Humanitarian Assistance)

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Madam Speaker, with permission I will make a statement on humanitarian assistance for Kosovo refugees. I will set out what we understand the latest position to be, and what our and the international response has been.
First, I want to make one point clear. I reject absolutely suggestions that we should have been prepared in advance for a movement of population on this scale. It would have been an appalling act of complicity in ethnic cleansing to set up in advance a network of camps to await the Albanian population of Kosovo. That would only have assisted Milosevic's objectives. What is now happening is a reflection of unimaginably outrageous behaviour on the part of the Serbian forces. People's anger must be directed at the Serbian aggression, and not the United Nations agencies struggling to cope with the crisis.
Our objective is clear: it is to secure a verified withdrawal of Serbian forces from Kosovo so that the refugees, including those displaced internally, can return to their homes. Meanwhile, I can assure the House that we will do all in our power to support the international effort to provide as quickly as possible shelter and food for those who have been driven over the borders.
As the House knows, there were more than 250,000 internally displaced people within Kosovo, and a further 100,000 in neighbouring countries before NATO intervened, but the situation has deteriorated sharply in recent days.
As people have seen on their television screens, more than 100,000 people—mostly women, children and elderly people—have been driven from their homes. They are very frightened. They are bringing with them stories of gross brutality and killing, which forced them to leave and often forced their menfolk to stay. The numbers in Albania are now 100,000, and the flow is continuing. In Macedonia, there were 16,000 refugees before 24 March, and another 14,500 have arrived. More are expected.
We share the concern of the House and people worldwide that the response to the crisis needs to be speeded up. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is leading a co-ordinated international response. We are doing all we can to support UNHCR, other UN agencies, the International Red Cross and non-governmental organisations which are providing assistance in the area.
At the beginning of this week, the Prime Minister announced that we had made available up to £10 million as an initial response to the current crisis. We are using this funding to get the most urgently needed items to where they are required. This is in addition to the £3 million provided for emergency relief in Kosovo since March 1998.
The first UK emergency flight, carrying 42 tonnes of tents and blankets, arrived in Tirana early this morning, and the supplies are now being distributed. A further flight using an RAF C130 aircraft is taking more tents and blankets to Skopje today. A UK-funded flight with UNHCR emergency personnel and supplies is also leaving

Amsterdam today for Tirana. We have also agreed to help airlift supplies into the region from warehouses in Europe, the middle east and north Africa.
We are identifying other ways of meeting urgent needs. We are providing emergency health kits through the World Health Organisation to cover the needs of 70,000 people for three months. We have provided £500,000 to help support the Red Cross operations in the region. We have asked NGOs working in the region to tell us their needs and have offered them logistical assistance to get into the field. We have in the last hour provided £500,000 to the World Food Programme so that it can move the food that it has to the people who are in need.
We will make further allocations over the coming days as needs become clear. To help identify these needs, we are sending an assessment and monitoring team to the region. The members of it will leave the UK this weekend, led by the head of my conflict and humanitarian affairs department.
The situation in Kosovo is a terrible tragedy—just as was the suffering inflicted in Bosnia by the same regime engaging in the same monstrous behaviour. This time, the difference is that the international community is acting militarily to halt the aggression. Everyone should be clear that the Kosovo refugees support the military action. They need urgent help with food, shelter and other emergency provisions. But they are clear that they want NATO to succeed and that they want to return to their homes. We are doing all in our power to support the UN effort and to speed up the humanitarian response. We will remain committed until we can assist with the much more welcome task of helping the refugees to return home.

Mr Gary Streeter: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for letting me have a copy of it a short while ago. I was in Kosovo just a few weeks ago, and she will recognise that her comments about the desire of displaced people to return to their homes is very much what they are saying to us all. Their desire is for peace and security and to return home, and everything that we do must facilitate that.
I welcome much of the action that the right hon. Lady has now taken. With half a million displaced people—a quarter of a population of about 2 million—it is now obvious that we are dealing with a full-blown humanitarian crisis. Does she agree that the UNHCR has been doing a first-class job in dealing with the crisis to date, and continues to do so? Does she agree, and will she never tire of saying, that it is President Milosevic who is responsible for the crisis? Does she agree also that it is the children who are particularly vulnerable? I understand that many who are crossing the border are suffering from pneumonia and bronchitis. Will she ensure that the health and welfare of children will be a specific priority for us in our humanitarian response?
The air strikes began on 24 March 1999. Will the right hon. Lady say to what extent her Department had by that date already prepared an action plan to meet the refugee crisis that would inevitably follow? When was the interdepartmental Kosovo emergency task force set up and when did it first meet? What co-ordination has taken place between her Department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence in producing her Government's response? In other words, did she anticipate the flood of refugees and has her Department prepared for it?
The opening paragraph of the right hon. Lady's statement can be described only as getting in her retaliation first. She must understand that many people feel that when aeroplanes were given the green light to fly, the humanitarian relief effort should at the same time have been ready to roll. Can she tell us what co-ordination there has been between her and the aid Ministers in all the NATO countries in preparing for this effort, and when it began?
Does the right hon. Lady agree that given that the conflict is on the doorstep of Europe, this provides an opportunity for the European Union, through the European Community Humanitarian Organisation which both she and I have rightly criticised in the past, to rise to the challenge and provide focused, urgent and effective aid to the people of Kosovo? Does she think that it will?
Will the right hon. Lady say a little more about the logistical difficulties that face the relief effort? Does she believe that the UNHCR has sufficient people to co-ordinate the humanitarian relief? What specific plans are in place to overcome the logistical difficulty in getting food, blankets and medicines to people who need them?
Does the right hon. Lady agree that north-west Albania is particularly unsuitable for many of the refugees because there are many Albanian armed bands roaming around? What steps are in hand to help the Albanian Government deal with those problems? Does she envisage a role for British troops in Bosnia and in Macedonia, helping to deliver humanitarian assistance?
The right hon. Lady has said that her Department will support applications from NGOs seeking funds for their response to the crisis. What amount of her budget will she be making available in addition to the amount already allocated?
Does the right hon. Lady support the appeal for funds launched by several British charities this week? Will her Government support the initiative put to the Prime Minister this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—that the Government should match, pound for pound, the money raised by the generous people of Britain? Will she put politics aside and support that initiative?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman started well and rose to the occasion. He said how serious this crisis is and backed what the Government are doing, but then, of course, his remarks deteriorated. The hon. Gentleman's comment that there is something wrong with my making the very important point that everyone who is moved by this suffering has got to bear in mind the fact that they should be angry with Slobodan Milosevic, not with the UN, suggests that there is something wrong with him.
The hon. Gentleman asked all those detailed little questions about when our Department moved. We are famous throughout the world humanitarian system for being the fastest. We are providing planes, we are moving the UNHCR's own resources and we are moving resources that are not in this country. We are the fastest and we have gone the farthest. Everyone who knows in any detail about these situations knows that that is Britain's contribution.
The co-ordination between our Departments has been seamless. Our officials—many of whom have not been getting much sleep recently—are in contact all the time, and Ministers are in contact all the time. The

refugees, the Albanian Prime Minister and all the people in the region are sending messages of thanks. We do not want messages of thanks, but we want to do a good job and we are ensuring that we will do that.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the EC has made a commitment of resources and we have to make sure that they get to the people on the ground very quickly. He asked whether the UNHCR has enough people in the region. The answer is no, but we are helping to fly people in on the planes that we have already organised. He is right to say that the situation in north-west Albania is very unsuitable; people are far too near the border and they are in danger. Buses have been provided by the Italians and people are being moved away. Encampments are being set up in playing fields near the capital as we speak.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether British troops should help with the effort. We and the Ministry of Defence have agreed that it would be desirable, particularly in Macedonia, for the troops to help with the humanitarian effort. Obviously, NATO has to agree. The people of Albania are being so generous; they are taking even more people into their homes, and Albanian troops are helping, but the problem is in Macedonia and I hope that we shall be able to make progress there.
We will supply support to NGOs that are already in the region. That is the only way to get things done quickly. We do not put money into boxes in order to allocate it; we put money into pockets where it can be delivered on the ground immediately. That is how we proceed. It is up to NGOs whether they appeal for funds, but the problem is not money, but logistics. There is enough food and there are enough tents and blankets, but they are not where the people are. That job involves organisation and logistics, and we are ahead of the game.
I heard what the Leader of the Opposition said, and the Prime Minister has said that he would consider his proposal, but my instinct is that it would slow things up. That is not what we need at the moment.

Mr. Tony Worthington: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement and on the Government's response. As she says, the problem is logistics. Will she keep her mind open to the necessity of using resources beyond those of the NGOs? There may be situations in which service engineers and other personnel have to be used to deploy resources that are not usually used in humanitarian disasters. I ask her to co-operate with the Ministry of Defence. I am sure that she will, because I feel confident that some building will have to be done and resources will have to be shifted. Only the military can do that.

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right; the problem is logistics. We are not relying on NGOs, as senior UN officials have expertise, engineers and so on. I agree that the services—who are flying out some materials—could help more, particularly in Macedonia. I know that the Ministry of Defence is in agreement, but it is a question of NATO agreeing. The services will then be able to provide the help that is needed in Macedonia. The mission will be a joint mission, involving the Ministry of Defence and my Department. We are working seamlessly together, as we are in Bosnia. We have offered a humanitarian adviser to our troops in Macedonia if we can get approval for such assistance.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: It may cheer the Secretary of State to learn that the first words that I have


written on my notes are to congratulate her and her Department on their speedy response to the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo. As a country, we should be proud to see such a response to such a difficult situation; a situation where women and children seem, once again, to be suffering disproportionately in modern warfare.
I do not agree with the rather sour remarks by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter). However, we would like confirmation that an assessment was made in the Department before the NATO offensive, in consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. Will this country—bilaterally, or with the EU—support education, health and other public services in Albania, Montenegro and Macedonia to prevent civil unrest in those countries, which could be so dangerous for the stability of the region?
What plans do the Government have for keeping a register of refugees whose identity papers have been removed by the Serbs, so that they can reclaim their homes in the event of peace? Are there plans for the repatriation of Kosovar refugees once a stable peace has been secured?

Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I am proud of the people in my Department, who are the best and the fastest in the world. They work enormously hard and, at times like this, they are working all night. It is nice for the House to recognise the quality of people whom we have working in the area. We are all entitled to be proud of them.
The hon. Lady said that women and children are suffering dreadfully. That is correct, but they are desperately worried about their menfolk, following the stories of what is happening. She asked whether an assessment was made before NATO started the action. She must understand that we work with the international system and, since the election, we have put a lot of energy into trying to get the system to work better.
The UNHCR was already in Kosovo, where there were many displaced people already. We were trying to get a more efficient system, and the UNHCR is expanding its operation. However, no one can get inside the head of Slobodan Milosevic. No one could have said exactly where or when the ethnic cleansing would start, or what direction he would drive in. There are tents, blankets and food in the region, but the problem is getting those things to the people who need them. I am confident that we will do that, but we want to speed the process up. There was no lack of preparation, but no one could have predicted what that bestial behaviour would produce.
The hon. Lady suggested that we should make provision for education, health care and other public services in surrounding countries. I agree, but those countries must not take the strain. The people of Albania have been fantastically generous, and are still taking people into their homes. They have been taking the strain for a long time. We must make sure that there is provision by the international community, not by those poor countries.
The situation in Macedonia is a worry. If we can get our troops to help with the humanitarian effort, it will help the situation there. However, we need NATO agreement

for that. The hon. Lady asked whether registers were being kept. That is a job for the UNHCR, not for us. It is doing that job, and statements are being taken in preparation for the International War Crimes Tribunal.

Mr. Tony Benn: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about financial aid for the humanitarian crisis, but she will recognise that it is only a tiny fraction of what is spent on the war every day. Given the scale of the human tragedy that is unfolding—we see it day by day on our screen—which exceeds anything that anyone in this House can ever have experienced, is it not clear that the only organisation with the logistical and air movement capacity to deal with this matter is NATO itself?
Would it not be sensible immediately to divert the aircraft currently operated by NATO for the supply of weapons, and to take the opportunity provided by yesterday's visit to Belgrade by Mr. Primakov to cease hostilities, at least over Easter—which is very precious to the Orthodox Church—in order to save lives?
If the situation is not tackled with the organisational efficiency with which the war is being undertaken, people will die of disease and starvation, and it will not comfort anyone if Ministers are able to say, "Do not blame us; blame Milosevic". It does not matter who is to blame; lives need to be saved now, and the only way of doing that is to bring about a cessation of hostilities so that NATO can be diverted for this purpose.

Clare Short: Let me say to my right hon. Friend—who is an old friend—that I wish he would stop and listen to the voice of the refugees. They are saying that they support the NATO action, that they want it to be carried through, that they want help in the meantime and that they then want to return home. In all humility, let me ask whether we should not listen to them.
Some military planes are being made available to us, but they tend to be too small. They are not the best planes to move the necessary resources. It is better for us to use civilian planes of the right size. We are quite good at this; we do it a lot; and we are using military planes simply because we need to use everything that we can lay hands on. Nevertheless, it is not right.
If there were a ceasefire now, the net result would be not that fewer people were hungry, but that more people were killed in Kosovo by Slobodan Milosevic. It would help Slobodan Milosevic. Surely my right hon. Friend does not want to do that.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I wholeheartedly welcome the right hon. Lady's statement, not only on behalf of all hon. Members but, in particular, on behalf of those who, having been driven from their homes in Kosovo, are now desperate refugees in neighbouring countries. Will the right hon. Lady ensure that the voice of women will be heard in the organisation of the camps, and that they and their children will be protected, given their present vulnerability and the vulnerability that they will experience in the camps? Will she also assure us that the extra money spent by the Department will not ultimately be taken from its budget, but will be replaced by the Treasury?

Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—I nearly called him my hon. Friend.
The hon. Gentleman is right. We have learned again about the situation of refugees. For the moment, we must get the camps organised, but for people living in camps for a long time, life can become very difficult. Children need to be educated, and women need to be respected. We have learned a lot, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will make the proper arrangements.
The £on that we have made available is in my budget. We must see how the spending goes after that—Government may have to consider other arrangements—but we have money available to deal with humanitarian disasters, and money has been allocated to Kosovo. We can afford the £10 million now, but if the crisis continues, the Government will have to consider providing further resources.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does my right hon. Friend share my hope that the views of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) are more representative of the Opposition's stance than those of his hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), whose typically snide contribution merely reminded me that it was the Conservative party that cut the international aid budget year on year, making it more difficult to do what the Department is now doing?
The flow of refugees across at least one border has slowed to a tiny trickle, presumably because supplies are not yet in place. Does my right hon. Friend know whether that is the only reason, or whether there are other difficulties that need to be resolved so that people can reach safety more quickly?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am certain that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), the Chair of the Select Committee on International Development, is much more representative of the view of decent Tories. Yes, the Conservative party cut the aid budget. As a matter of historical record, it stood by when ethnic cleansing went on in Bosnia.
My hon. Friend is right to say that there is a problem on the border of Macedonia. There is a slow trickle of people getting across the border and a big tail of people wishing to cross. They are in a worrying situation. That is caused not by a shortage of resources, but by bureaucratic procedures on the border.
We are worried about the situation. We have been in touch with our ambassador, and he has been in touch with the Macedonian Government. We are exerting all the pressure that we can. There is divided opinion in Macedonia; that is part of the problem. That is why I am keen, if we can, to get the forces to help with the humanitarian situation, so that the public in Macedonia do not resent the refugees.

Mr. Alan Clark: The right hon. Lady mentioned that she is making available £500,000 worth of emergency food supplies. Does she realise that that is slightly less than the cost of one cruise missile, and that more than 50 cruise missiles are being dumped on Yugoslavia every night? I recognise her commitment to the humanitarian issue, as does the whole House, and her practical good sense, but she must accept that £500 million of ordnance being dumped on Yugoslavia every 24 hours is killing people. That is nothing to do with Milosevic—he is not killing them—and it is not getting anywhere near him either. Yugoslav civilians are being killed by the NATO air offensive.
If the right hon. Lady can accept that equation, she will surely see that the sooner the bombing is halted and diplomatic initiatives take place again, the more resources, on an enormous scale, will be immediately released for the purposes that she knows how to apply so well.

Clare Short: I am surprised by the right hon. Gentleman; I thought that he was a better historian than that. Does he not remember appeasement? Milosevic was appeased in Bosnia, and look what happened. He is doing it again. There are times, however difficult, when we have to stand against such fascist evil. Fascism is reappearing in Europe only 50-odd years after the end of the terrible events in Germany.
The right hon. Gentleman misheard me. The £500,000 that has been made available to the World Food Programme is for logistics. It has enough food. The money is not for food; that is being provided anyway. The money has been provided so that we can move the food to the people.
NATO is not killing civilians. The very carefulness of our operations is to ensure that there is minimum damage to civilians. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may laugh, but it is the truth. He should pause and have more humility. People who are walking up mountains and who fear that their menfolk are being executed are saying, "Please carry on with the NATO action." Should he not listen to them?

Fiona Mactaggart: Will my right hon. Friend place a high priority on ensuring that UNHCR staff are available to document the refugees in the places where those refugees are going? Milosevic is not merely stealing their identity documents, but using the period to destroy their existence in Kosovo, blowing up register offices, burning land documents and so on. That is clearly an attempt to finish off the ethnic cleansing that he has started.
It is our duty to provide such documentation. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to assure me that some of the work of her Department will enable that to be implemented, to ensure that Kosovars can reclaim their identity and their land.

Clare Short: I assure my hon. Friend that the whole purpose of the operation—and we will go on until we finish—is to drive back the military aggression and to help people to go home. We will do it. Records are being kept, and much more detailed records of the war crimes are also being taken. I am sure that there will be quite a lot of trials after the matter is settled.

Sir Alastair Goodlad: The right hon. Lady will be aware that all those involved in seeking to mitigate this appalling tragedy, whether they be servants of her Department or people working for NGOs, will have the wholehearted support of the House. Can she reassure the House that she is confident that proper measures will be taken for their physical protection in the countries around Kosovo?

Clare Short: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that all the people who are working so hard would be equally grateful. Our concern lies in northern Albania, where people are in inappropriate circumstances


and where there is fighting close to the border from which they may be in danger. An operation is taking place, and the Italians have provided buses to move people to safer places. We will do all in our power to protect people engaged in humanitarian action. Across the world, more and more such people have been targeted and killed. As yet, we do not see that danger arising, but we are trying to make better arrangements for northern Albania.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: How can the Secretary of State be so innocent as to come to the Dispatch Box of the House of Commons and use the word "unimaginable"? The moment American and British leaders said that ground troops would not be used and that there would be air attacks, was it not all too obvious—predictable and predicted, foreseeable and foreseen—that the Serbs would wreak the most terrible retaliatory vengeance on those whom we had left vulnerable? What does "intensification" do about ruthless machine gunners and pistol users who are crazed by what has happened to their own families 400 or 500 miles to the north?
Leaving aside the dangers of humiliating the Russians and their best intentions, why did the Government reject—apparently out of hand, although I stand to be corrected if that is not so—the proposals of the one man, the Russian Prime Minister, who could have done something? Finally, what exactly did the Prime Minister mean at Question Time when he used the phrase "to finish the job"? Which job? What does it mean?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend makes me very sad. Anyone who is critical of the military action should have more humility and should listen to the voices of those who are suffering. The refugees, the people in Kosovo and the Albanian Government strongly support the NATO action and are asking that we go on to finish the job. Finishing that job means reversing Serbian aggression, reaching a political settlement, putting in ground forces to make it safe—[Interruption.] That is a recognised part of the policy and it was declared long ago. It means returning people to their homes and helping people to rebuild. That is what is right. My hon. Friend is wrong.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Not a single Member would question the personal or political will of the Secretary of State, and I congratulate her on her actions. I do not know whether she made a slip of the tongue in responding to the previous question. I suspect she meant to refer to peacekeeping forces, not ground forces. Perhaps she would clarify that point.
Countries that surround Kosovo face difficulties in dealing with this huge problem. People are being stripped of every aspect of their identity, including even car number plates. There is now a citizenless class in the area. Can the United Nations, the European Union and NATO come together to make sure that people will have homes to return to? Will part of our policy be to rebuild homes?

Clare Short: Throughout the tragedies of Bosnia, I recall, I sat beside the hon. Lady, and we shared the view that there should have been earlier intervention to stop Milosevic. It would have been easier then, and there were mistakes in our policy. At least now we are doing what is right.
I made no slip in mentioning land forces. It was made clear in the Rambouillet talks that if autonomy was agreed, troops were already out there who could move in to keep people safe and to enforce the agreement. That was always part of the proposal. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked what finishing the job meant, so I was briefly reminding him of what had been announced.
There are no citizenless people. They are citizens of Kosovo. They have homes; they know where they come from. We hope that the action will be over soon and that they can go home. Burning their papers does not destroy their identity. They are citizens, and their legal rights will be respected. They will go home, and the international community will make sure they have help in rebuilding their homes.

Mr. David Lock: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and direct her mind particularly to the problems facing the children of Kosovo? I do so without making any party political points—which have no bearing on this debate, and should not have been made in the first place. Does she agree that—according to information that the Under—Secretary of State for International Development and I were given at a recent meeting—19 of 20 children who die in war zones die not from guns or bullets, but because the health system that is so essential to keeping them alive disintegrates because of the destruction of war?
Will my right hon. Friend particularly commend the British paediatricians who, over the years, have been prepared to travel to war zones—to rebuild, to retrain and to treat children who need medical treatment? Will she ensure that her Department considers any requests that it has received from organisations supporting paediatricians, to enable the great humanitarian work by highly qualified British doctors to continue—so that they may treat some of the 19 of 20 children who might otherwise die, not from bullets, but from the displacement and destruction of war?

Clare Short: I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to British paediatricians, and to those from around the world, who go into very dangerous and difficult situations to care for children. They are some of the bravest people, and I think that we all admire and respect them.
In Kosovo—compared with, say, Rwanda—children are healthier to start with, and we have enough time. We are working with the World Health Organisation in putting in health kits, and should be able to prevent any deterioration in that situation. I am pretty confident in saying that we will be able to prevent it. Although there is a little time problem, people are being fed. Now, we have to get people under canvas, as some people have been sleeping out of doors.
My hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that we must ensure that health systems are available, but we are providing health kits to ensure that the problem does not arise. We should be able to organise it so that those children will be safe. In some conflicts in Africa, children are malnourished to start with, making the situation much more serious.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: May I place on record my encouragement and support, and that of Plaid Cymru,


for the right hon. Lady in the enormously important work that her Department is doing? The military operation is an enormous logistical exercise, and I join those who have said that the humanitarian exercise should be commensurate with it in seriousness, scale and commitment of resources. Will not the humanitarian exercise have to be maintained for as long as necessary—until those people are able first, to live in the places to which they have been displaced, and secondly, to return and reconstruct in Kosovo itself? It is bound to entail a very major commitment of resources. I therefore add my voice to those who have said that that commitment should in no way reduce the Department's capacity to continue its programmes elsewhere, and that additional resources will have to be provided to meet all its commitments.

Clare Short: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support, and that of his party, for all the work that is being done. I absolutely agree with him that the humanitarian response must be as powerful, well-resourced and efficient as the military exercise. He was absolutely right to say that we have to be there for as long as necessary. We all hope that the military campaign will be successful quickly, and that, therefore, as soon as possible, we shall be helping people to go home. However, we shall stay there and be there until we can help people to go home and to reconstruct.
As I told the Select Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), the £10 million that the Government have made available is available in my budget—from which we make allocations to deal with humanitarian disasters, and have made allocations to that region. However, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) was right—if the crisis in Kosovo continues and costs more, we shall have to consider where we will get the resources from.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I, too, offer my sincere compliments to my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development and their officials on their speedy response to these dreadful events? However, I hope that she will forgive me for introducing a possibly carping note to the debate. Does she agree that the terrible plight of the refugees, and the involvement of those remarkable officials from the grossly underfunded UNHCR, bring into stark relief the ignominious failure of the United States to honour its financial obligations to the United Nations? Is there not now an opportunity for the people on Capitol hill to make right that terrible failure?
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) that it is essential to involve units such as the Royal Engineers, and other similar units from NATO forces, to help those refugees to have bearable lives by providing them with makeshift services as soon as possible.

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Everyone carps about funding the United Nations but, at moments like this, we need a good, well-funded and well-staffed UN. People complain that things are not moving as rapidly as they might, but that is because there has not been strong enough support for the UN in the past.
My hon. Friend made his point about United States contributions. I hope that the advertisement from six former Secretaries of State calling on the United States to pay its dues to the UN has an effect on public opinion there.
My hon. Friend talked about the Royal Engineers. It is not always best to have military people providing for civilians. It is not always appropriate for the children. It is often better to have civilians. As my hon. Friend knows, in Bosnia, because our troops are there, we have provided some resources and they are helping the refugees to return. That is a sensible use of resources because the troops are there. In general, the effort should be led by the UN, but we have particular problems in Macedonia. It would help if the military there were able to help the humanitarian effort. There might then be less doubt in Macedonia about allowing in the refugees. Where appropriate, it is good to do it.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the right hon. Lady agree that humanitarian aid has a real role to play? I wish to add my congratulations to her and her team for the work they have done. Can the right hon. Lady explain why there was a delay of seven days after the first bombs had been dropped before the departure of the first plane carrying humanitarian aid? The House has some concern about that.
In Question Time today, the Prime Minister referred to the role of an independent force in Kosovo. He did not say whether it would have an aggressive role to drive back Milosevic's forces from Kosovo, or a peacekeeping and humanitarian role. Perhaps the right hon. Lady will explain to the House what role that independent force would have.

Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support for all those involved in the humanitarian effort. There is a problem about what happens when the cameras are not there. I remind the hon. Lady and the House that there were many refugees before the NATO action began. We were there as was the UNHCR. We were spending money and backing up the UNHCR. It was not that there was no food, no tents and no blankets before that flight. There was quite a lot of food and resources in Albania, but not in northern Albania. We need to bring more into the region as the flow of refugees is so big and is clearly going to continue. The hon. Lady must not think that there was nothing there before.
The hon. Lady asked about ground forces. That is not new. Part of the Rambouillet proposals was that, if there was acceptance of autonomy for Kosovo together with a peace deal and a withdrawal of the Serb forces of aggression, ground troops would go in to police the deal. They were in Macedonia waiting to move. That was part of the Paris talks. Those are the forces to which the Prime Minister referred and which I mentioned when I answered my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

Ms Tess Kingham: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her announcement today. It is widely recognised that her Department is a world leader in ensuring that prompt and appropriate humanitarian assistance reaches parts of the world where it is most needed. It is understandable that attention now is focused on providing immediate needs such as shelter, housing and health care, but will she consider ensuring that, at an early stage, trauma counselling and psychological support are made available for the refugees as they come over the border? We have seen to our regret in the past that that has not always been seen as an immediate need, but we have seen Milosevic's thugs burning villages, razing them to the ground and raping women.
We have heard about the atrocities committed. This time, may we please ensure that that support is given to people early on, not merely for their psychological well-being, but to ensure that some of the war crimes and atrocities can be documented early on, so that the perpetrators can eventually be brought to trial?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am proud of the people in my Department and I am grateful to the House for recognising the work that they do. They are respected internationally—they are the fastest, they are very good indeed and they work very hard. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The people arriving are very frightened and worried about members of their families whom they have left behind. This morning, I read a telegram from our ambassador in Albania, which said that women who had arrived had not been able to pick up their children, who had been put somewhere just outside the town to be safer. One can imagine the fear and worry. The stories of executions and brutality make people highly traumatised. We learned that in Bosnia—hon. Members must remember the rapes and all the women involved—and we brought in psychological support later. My hon. Friend is right and I will ensure that, as soon as we are organised, that sort of assistance is provided.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I join my hon. Friends in congratulating the right hon. Lady's officials for responding so quickly to the huge humanitarian crisis, which involves the largest movement of refugees in Europe since the war? I have no doubt that the British people will want to be very generous in responding to the crisis. They also expect their Government to be generous. Therefore, I appeal to the right hon. Lady to respond to the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) that the Government should match, pound for pound, every pound that the people give to NGOs. Further to an earlier answer, how on earth would the implementation of such a scheme slow up the aid given to NGOs?

Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising the quality of my officials. May I explain that I have £10 million now. Our word is trusted. We are hiring aeroplanes from other countries over the telephone. They are being made ready immediately on our word because we have the money, we can spend it now and we can move immediately. The problem is not money; it is getting the planes, getting the logistics right and getting everything moved into the right places. In answer to the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he would look at the proposal. I understand that the Disasters Emergency Committee is about to launch an appeal: advertisements will go in the

papers and collections will be made. That will take some time and that is my point. We have to spend now and get things moving now.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: We all know that, true to form, my right hon. Friend will be pressing to maximise the budget that may need to be made available to her now and later. Will she ensure that the Ministry of Defence is not allowed to purloin any part of that budget in the form of charges for aircraft that it lets her Department have, as happened on a previous occasion? Also, will she relay to representatives of the Government of Albania the deepest appreciation of Members of this House for the valiant work being done by the Albanian people in helping to resolve the crisis?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to say that, in the past, when the military made a contribution, the Overseas Development Administration was made to pay from its budget. Military costs are high—higher than hiring civilian aeroplanes. Since we formed our Government, the military has helped on a number of occasions and the Department has never been charged. One of the flights that I announced today is a military flight and we are not paying. The Ministry of Defence is contributing, so that is not happening.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising the generosity of the people of Albania. It is a very poor country and it is recovering from a civil war. Many refugees have been flowing into Albania for a long time. People have been taking them into their homes—these are very poor people—and, even now, they are taking more. The Prime Minister of Albania sent a lovely, moving letter to our Prime Minister to thank us both for the military action and our other help. I will ensure that my hon. Friend's message is conveyed and I am sure that people will be grateful for it.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Lady agree that it would be prudent at least to plan against the risk of long-term, large-scale refugee problems arising from Milosevic's present, and likely future, actions? Does she further agree that permanent refugee camps are undesirable? What steps does she propose, in concert with other countries, to facilitate the permanent resettlement of those refugees who want to be settled outside Kosovo in countries away from the frontiers of the former Yugoslavia?

Clare Short: I caution the right hon. and learned Gentleman that although he may not mean it to happen, Mr. Milosevic would be pleased at his suggestion. We are not planning to move people out of the region. People do not want to move out; they want to go home as fast as possible. They support the NATO action and want it to be successful. They need protecting now. We have plans to look after them now and to help them go home to reconstruct as fast as possible.

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the past 80 minutes, we have heard the remarkable proposition that, by the use of air power, without ground troops, populations are to be re-established in areas from which they have been cruelly driven. I know that, technically, it would be difficult to move for a debate under Standing Order No. 20, but I understand that it could be done at 7 pm despite the statement that we expect on defence. Are you prepared to hear my request? Do you accept that several of us, with very different points of view, think that it is not proper in this situation that the House of Commons should be away next week, and that, in these dire circumstances, there should be a recall of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I am not in a position to deal with the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. On the first part, he must put such requests to Madam Speaker. It is not a matter with which I can deal.

Mr. David Faber: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that, last week, the House debated the Government's roads policy, with frequent mention by me and other hon. Members of detrunking existing trunk roads. A local journalist rang to tell me that the Deputy Prime Minister is to make a statement on the detrunking of the national road network tomorrow. Is it not a common courtesy that local Members be informed of such decisions by Ministers, before they are released to the press? Is it not a coincidence that the statement is to be made on the first day of the recess, thus ensuring that the Deputy Prime Minister cannot be questioned on his plans?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I heard what the hon. Gentleman had to say, but it is not a matter for the Chair. I have no knowledge of the matter that he raised.

Prescription Charges (Hormone Replacement Therapy)

Dr. Howard Stoate (Dartford): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for women requiring hormone replacement therapy to pay a single prescription charge for both single and cyclical hormones, regardless of the preparation they are taking.
Hormone replacement therapy has three major benefits. It effectively treats the symptoms of the menopause. There is a likely, but not yet proven, link with reducing the risk of heart disease. The most important benefit to women's long-term health is that it effectively reduces the incidence of osteoporosis in women after the menopause.
After the menopause, all women lose calcium from their bones. For many, the loss is much more severe, resulting in osteoporosis, which is often known as brittle bone disease. The condition reduces bone density and increases the likelihood of fractures, back pain and curvature of the spine. It causes not only much pain and suffering but huge physical, psychological and social cost to sufferers and their families.
The effects on the national health service are also considerable. There are 60,000 hip fractures in the United Kingdom every year, or one every 10 minutes. Sadly, by the time that I have sat down, someone else will have fallen down and broken a hip. Eighty per cent. of hip fractures are in women over 50. Treating a fractured hip costs £4,800. That is £4,800 every 10 minutes. One in five of those who suffer a hip fracture will go on to require long-term residential nursing home care costing, on average, £19,000 a year. That is one extra nursing home place taken every hour as a result of osteoporotic hip fractures alone.
At the menopause, HRT is a logical and appropriate intervention for the prevention of osteoporosis. It is proven to reduce bone loss in women, and it can delay or even prevent the onset of osteoporosis, thus significantly reducing the risk of fragility fractures.
The Department of Health local health action sheet advises GPs to counsel women on the risks and benefits of HRT at the menopause, and lists HRT as an effective drug therapy for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. The effectiveness of HRT in preventing reductions in bone density and reducing fractures is beyond doubt.
If we are to meet our targets set out in the Department of Health Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation" for reducing the huge burden of accidents, we need to encourage more women who would benefit from HRT to use it. Current opinion holds that giving HRT for periods of up to 10 years yields significant benefits, with minimised risk. The suggestion that HRT causes women to wear lurid outfits and to act strangely in the national media are purely anecdotal.
There are different types of HRT, and different types suit different women. Women who have undergone a hysterectomy can be prescribed the single hormone oestrogen. This attracts a single prescription charge. Women who are completely past the menopause can use combined therapy with little or no side effects. This also attracts a single prescription charge. Then there is the perimenopausal group—those women who are either still,


or have just finished, menstruating. The other two therapies are usually not suitable for such women, and cyclical treatment is required. If unopposed oestrogen is given to such women, there is a significant risk of endometrial cancer. Thus, they must take two different hormones—oestrogen and a progestogen—separately at different times in their cycle. Although that treatment is usually contained in one treatment pack, it attracts two prescription charges.
Many of my constituents in Dartford, and several hon. Members of the House, have approached me about that anomaly. Why, they ask, should some women, for purely medical reasons, face the double charge? My experience as a GP tells me that some people find the double charge not only inexplicable but a significant cost burden which can put them off taking the treatment altogether. Professor David Purdie, of the British Menopause Society, estimates that 50 per cent. of post-menopausal women would benefit from HRT, but that only 10 per cent. of the group are using the therapy. That means that 40 per cent. of post-menopausal women are not benefiting from a therapy which could bring them relief from their current symptoms and reduce the risk of osteoporosis in later life. Our task should be to reduce the figure of 40 per cent. as much as possible by encouraging women who decide, after discussion with their GP, that HRT is right for them to use it.
Women in the group most likely to require cyclical therapy are aged 50 to 60. Although 86 per cent. of prescriptions are issued free, women in that age group are very likely to pay for their own prescriptions. Nor is this a small problem. Figures that I have obtained from the House of Commons Library show that, of the 5.8 million prescriptions for HRT in 1997, 62 per cent. were charged as one item. That means that 38 per cent., or 2.2 million prescriptions, attracted a double charge. That is a clear disincentive, preventing a wider take-up of HRT.
"Our Healthier Nation" contained welcome initiatives for reducing fractures among the elderly. Osteoporosis is a major cause of fractures, and an important plank of any strategy to tackle it has to be a greater take-up of HRT. I welcome the Green Paper and the strategies contained in it, and I congratulate the Government, and especially the Minister for Public Health, on a document that details how we can put into practice the old adage, "Prevention is better than cure."
When more women are aware of the benefits of HRT and can decide whether it is right for them, and when the double prescription charge disincentive is removed, the incidence of osteoporosis can be reduced. That will reduce the cost to the NHS of treating osteoporosis and, more important, reduce the pain and suffering that it causes.
The Bill tackles a clear anomaly in the system, and it will go a long way towards increasing the use of HRT by those women who could benefit from it. I ask hon. Members to endorse the Bill, which will directly benefit the lives of many of their constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Howard Stoate, Ms Christine Russell, Mr. Gareth Thomas, Mr. Stephen Pound, Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Dr. Evan Harris and Mr. John Austin.

PRESCRIPTION CHARGES (HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY)

Dr. Howard Stoate accordingly presented a Bill to provide for women requiring hormone replacement therapy to pay a single prescription charge for both single and cyclical hormones, regardless of the preparation they are taking: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 June, and to be printed [Bill 80].

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

VALUE ADDED TAX

That the Value Added Tax (Buildings and Land) Order 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 593), dated 9th March 1999, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be approved.

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the Value Added Tax (Finance) Order 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 594), dated 9th March 1999, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 153.

Division No.137]
[4.31pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caborn, Richard


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Atkins, Charlotte
Canavan, Dennis


Austin, John
Cann, Jamie


Banks, Tony
Caplin, Ivor


Barron, Kevin
Caton, Martin


Battle, John
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Beard, Nigel
Clapham, Michael


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Begg, Miss Anne
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)



Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Benton, Joe
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Berry, Roger
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Best, Harold
Clwyd, Ann


Betts, Clive
Coaker, Vernon


Blackman, Liz
Coffey, Ms Ann


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cohen, Harry


Blizzard, Bob
Coleman, Iain


Borrow, David
Colman, Tony


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cooper, Yvette


Bradshaw, Ben
Corbett, Robin


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Corbyn, Jeremy


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Cousins, Jim



Cox, Tom


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Crausby, David


Buck, Ms Karen
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Burden, Richard
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Burgon, Colin
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire






Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Darvill, Keith



Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)



Davidson, Ian
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Denham, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dismore, Andrew
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dobbin, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Donohoe, Brian H
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dowd, Jim
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Drown, Ms Julia
Kemp, Fraser


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Khabra, Piara S


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kidney, David


Edwards, Huw
Kilfoyle, Peter


Efford, Clive
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Ennis, Jeff
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Etherington, Bill
Kingham, Ms Tess


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fisher, Mark
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Laxton, Bob


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Leslie, Christopher


Flint, Caroline
Levitt, Tom


Flynn, Paul
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Follett, Barbara
Linton, Martin


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Livingstone, Ken


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lock, David


Foulkes, George
Love, Andrew


Fyfe, Maria
McAllion, John


Gapes, Mike
McAvoy, Thomas


Gardiner, Barry
McCabe, Steve


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gerrard, Neil
McDonnell, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McIsaac, Shona


Godman, Dr Norman A
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Godsiff, Roger
Mackinlay, Andrew


Goggins, Paul
McNamara, Kevin


Golding, Mrs Llin
McNulty, Tony


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
MacShane, Denis


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Grocott, Bruce
McWalter, Tony


Grogan, John
McWilliam, John


Hain, Peter
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mallaber, Judy


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hanson, David
Marek, Dr John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Healey, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hepburn, Stephen
Martlew, Eric


Heppell, John
Maxton, John


Hesford, Stephen
Merron, Gillian


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hill, Keith
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hinchliffe, David
Miller, Andrew


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mitchell, Austin


Hood, Jimmy
Moffatt, Laura


Hoon, Geoffrey
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hope, Phil
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Morley, Elliot


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Mountford, Kali


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mullin, Chris


Hurst, Alan
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hutton, John
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Iddon, Dr Brian
Norris, Dan


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jamieson, David
Olner, Bill


Jenkins, Brian
O'Neill, Martin


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Osborne, Ms Sandra



Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Pearson, Ian





Pendry, Tom
Soley, Clive


Perham, Ms Linda
Southworth, Ms Helen


Pickthall, Colin
Spellar, John


Pike, Peter L
Squire, Ms Rachel


Plaskitt, James
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Pollard, Kerry
Steinberg, Gerry


Pond, Chris
Stevenson, George


Pope, Greg
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pound, Stephen
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Stinchcombe, Paul


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stringer, Graham


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prosser, Gwyn



Purchase, Ken
Temple-Morris, Peter


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Todd, Mark


Quinn, Lawrie
Trickett, Jon


Radice, Giles
Truswell, Paul


Rammell, Bill
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rapson, Syd
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Rooker, Jeff
Vaz, Keith


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Roy, Frank
Walley, Ms Joan


Ruane, Chris
Ward, Ms Claire


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wareing, Robert N


Ryan, Ms Joan
Watts, David


Salter, Martin
White, Brian


Sarwar, Mohammad
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Savidge, Malcolm
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sawford, Phil
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy) 



Wills, Michael


Sedgemore, Brian
Winnick, David


Shaw, Jonathan
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sheerman, Barry
Wise, Audrey


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Woolas, Phil


Shipley, Ms Debra
Worthington, Tony


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wray, James


Singh, Marsha
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Skinner, Dennis
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)



Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Jane Kennedy and Mr. David Clelland.


Smith, Uew (Blaenau Gwent)



NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Allan, Richard
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Amess, David
Collins, Tim


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Cotter, Brian


Baker, Norman
Cran, James


Baldry, Tony
Curry, Rt Hon David


Beggs, Roy
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bercow, John
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)


Blunt, Crispin



Boswell, Tim
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Duncan, Alan


Brady, Graham
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Nigel


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Faber, David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fallon, Michael


Burns, Simon
Fearn, Ronnie


Butterfill, John
Flight, Howard


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Forsythe, Clifford


Forth, Rt Hon Eric



Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Foster, Don (Bath)



Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Chidgey, David
Fox, Dr Liam


Chope, Christopher
Gale, Roger


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Garnier, Edward






Gibb, Nick
Ottaway, Richard


Gill, Christopher
Page, Richard


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Paice, James


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Pickles, Eric


Gray, James
Prior, David


Green, Damian
Randall, John


Greenway, John
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Grieve, Dominic
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Hammond, Philip
Ruffley, David


Harris, Dr Evan
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hawkins, Nick
St Aubyn, Nick


Heald, Oliver
Sanders, Adrian


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Horam, John
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Spring, Richard


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Streeter, Gary


Jenkin, Bernard
Stunell, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Swayne, Desmond



Syms, Robert


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Key, Robert
Taylor, Sir Teddy


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Tonge, Dr Jenny



Townend, John


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tredinnick, David


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Trend, Michael


Lansley, Andrew
Tyler, Paul


Leigh, Edward
Tyrie, Andrew


Letwin, Oliver
Viggers, Peter


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Walter, Robert


Lidington, David
Webb, Steve


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Wells, Bowen


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Welsh, Andrew


Llwyd, Elfyn
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Loughton, Tim
Whittingdale, John


Luff, Peter
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Willetts, David


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Wilshire, David


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Woodward, Shaun


Maples, John
Yeo, Tim


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


May, Mrs Theresa



Moss, Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Norman, Archie
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and Mr. John M. Taylor.


Öpik, Lembit

Question accordingly agreed to

SOCIAL SECURITY

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) Standing Commitees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Social Security (Incapacity, Earnings and Work Trials)Pilot Schemes Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Employment Relations Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

Clause 28

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 14, leave out from beginning of line 10 to end of line 40 on page 15 and insert—
'. Schedule (Employment Agencies) shall have effect.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 1, in page 14, leave out lines 12 to 21.
No. 36, in page 14, line 21, at end insert—
'(ed) regulating the conduct of hirers in paying appropriate fees to such agencies and businesses for supplying workers for permanent or temporary employment.'.
No. 2, in page 14, line 21, at end insert—
'Provided that regulations under this section shall only be made with the purpose of protecting employees' rights and not otherwise to interfere with the commercial relationship between such agencies or businesses and employers'.
No. 35, in page 14, line 21, at end insert—
'Provided that regulations under this section shall only be made in such a way as to avoid prejudice to the ability of the private recruitment industry to continue to expand its role in the labour market.'.
No. 3, in page 14, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 15.
No. 34, in page 15, line 38, at end insert—
'(6A) In section 12—
(a)in subsection (5), at the beginning insert "Subject to subsection (6) below,";
(b)after subsection (5) insert—
"(6) Regulations under section 5 shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before, and approved by Resolution of, each House of Parliament.".'.
Government new schedule 2—Employment Agencies.

Mr. Byers: I shall speak to amendment No. 59 and new schedule 2, but reserve my comments on the amendments tabled by the Opposition until I wind up the debate later this evening.
I shall explain the motives behind amendment No. 59 and the changes that we intend to introduce through new schedule 2. The proposals make changes that we believe are necessary to the employment agency standards inspectorate's powers of entry and to allow it to take away copies of documents.
It was observed during the passage of the Employment Agencies Bill in 1973 that it was modelled in part on the Croydon Corporation Act 1960. I do not know whether many hon. Members are experts on the Croydon Corporation Act 1960 but, if they are, they will know that the inspection powers follow the lines of governing agencies in the Edwardian era. The wording can be traced


back further to the Manchester Corporation Act 1903. I know that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is an expert on that, and I am sure that he will regale us in great detail with sections of that Act. As the proceedings move towards midnight, we shall look forward to that with great pleasure.
Paragraphs 4(2) to 4(5) of new schedule 2 amend section 9 of the 1973 Act to ensure that its powers are appropriate to the beginning of the next century. Modern inspection powers are all the more important now that bureaux no longer have to be licensed. New section 9(1A) enables the Department of Trade and Industry's inspectors to enter relevant business premises, as defined in new section 9(1B). Those provisions extend the range of premises that the DTI's inspectors may enter in the course of their duties.
On the face of it, that seems a draconian power, but we hope that it will help employment agencies. The present wording of the 1973 Act allows DTI inspectors to enter premises to examine documents only if those premises are being used by an employment agency, even though, for practical reasons, the agency may have documents in another building. The changes will introduce flexibility to ensure that documents can be retained elsewhere provided that they can be inspected at reasonable notice and in a reasonable way.
New section 9(1C) takes into account the fact that we are now living in the computer age and allows for computerised information to be held remotely, provided that it is accessible from the relevant premises. The DTI's inspectors will not be able to take documents away with them, but new proposals will allow them to take copies of relevant documents.
Paragraph 4(4) amends section 9(2) of the Employment Agencies Act by replacing the existing provision against self-incrimination with a new provision that takes into account the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Saunders v. the United Kingdom.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: rose—

Mr. John Bercow: rose—

Mr. Byers: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Dr. Godman: Will the provisions have any effect on subcontractors, some of whom are utterly unscrupulous, who employ foreign nationals to work in our offshore oil and gas installations? Many of the employees concerned are taken on for disgracefully low wages and their terms and conditions of employment are, or should be, utterly unacceptable in an industrial society such as ours.

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend has raised two distinct issues. On levels of pay, he will be aware—he drew the situation to my attention—that people working in the circumstances that he described were not covered by the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, but we introduced in the House a few days ago an order—

Mr. Tim Boswell: indicated assent.

Mr. Byers: As the hon. Gentleman indicates from a sedentary position, we introduced an order that will

extend the provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act to individuals working in precisely those circumstances. Unfortunately, those provisions will not take effect tomorrow, when the national minimum wage will come into force for the bulk of employees, but on 1 May. Although that measure will take effect a month later, I am sure that it will be widely welcome.
We are trying to deal with my hon. Friend's second point, about abuse and exploitation, through the regulations that we shall introduce through the Bill. I can give him some comfort by saying that, when we introduce the proposals by way of regulation once we have consulted on the detail, he will be satisfied that we have addressed those concerns.

Mr. Bercow: The Secretary of State's historical exegesis has been much enjoyed so far by a packed House. On the subject of the notice required before premises are visited and inspected, will he assure the House that he will be guided by one or other of the many precedents in other legislation? It would be helpful if he could tell us at this point by which he will be guided.

Mr. Byers: This legislation stands on its own, and precedents will no doubt be created when it comes to be interpreted. It is far better to allow the courts to consider the wording that the House is putting in place and for them to interpret it accordingly. However, there are rules of statutory interpretation, which will apply to any legislation. It is wholly appropriate that the courts adopt that particular approach, and they will do so in the context of this legislation as they do with all other legislation.

Mr. Bercow: That was a marvellously fluent response, but I am afraid that the fog has, if anything, increased. I intend no discourtesy to the Secretary of State, but will he give the House an idea of what he would consider in this context to be a reasonable period of notice?

Mr. Byers: I have studied law for far too long not to know that one should not try to define what is meant by "reasonable" in any hypothetical situation. It must always be—[Interruption.] I see that the Opposition Whip, who is a lawyer, agrees with that approach.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I was amused by it.

Mr. Byers: That probably speaks volumes. Reasonableness will always be a matter for the courts to decide in the circumstances of any particular case. The important point to bear in mind is that, if that is what is required, the test of reasonableness, to which the hon. Member for Buckingham referred, must be considered in the circumstances of the case.
I was saying that, in relation to self-incrimination, we have to take into account the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Saunders v. the United Kingdom, and these measures do precisely that.

Mr. Ian Bruce: In opposition, one is always keen to ensure that one makes a positive contribution to a Bill. I wonder whether the proposal was always intended to be concerned with self-incrimination. When I made a speech on precisely that point in Committee, the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and


Industry was unaware that, by allowing this sort of inspection, one was effectively giving an unwarranted—I use that word in both its senses—access to people's records. That is extremely important as, once enacted, the Bill will extend the offences that can be investigated by the investigator so that they cover almost anything.

Mr. Byers: My approach is that if good ideas that can improve the Bill are put forward in Committee—from whichever party they come—we should try to incorporate them on Report. This may well be an example of that happening. It is good practice and one which I intend to follow so that we end up with better legislation.
I hope that Government amendment No. 59 and new schedule 2 strike a careful balance between the needs of regulation and the regulated. I am sure that the majority of bureaux will welcome the modernisation of record-keeping and inspection powers and the up-to-date safeguards that we are putting in place while ensuring that we, as a Department, exercise our inspection powers.
This is a good opportunity to pay tribute to the majority of private recruitment agencies. They play a key role in meeting the demand for flexible and multi-skilled staff. They provide hirers with the means of coping with fluctuating demand, as well as providing specialist skills in recruitment. They also help find work for many people who might otherwise be unable to participate in the labour market. Employment agencies can play a valuable role. Indeed, the industry is one of the economy's success stories. It has grown continuously in recent years. Most measures show that it has more than tripled in size since 1992, and provisional figures for the third quarter of 1998 show growth of more than 20 per cent. over the previous year.
We believe that the existing framework of regulation no longer meets the needs of the industry or of its clients and therefore needs to be changed. There is much good practice and much that the industry should be commended for. We are wholly committed to maintaining flexibilities in the labour market, but underpinned by minimum standards for those in work. However, its role can continue to expand only if it is based on fair and non-restrictive terms applying to both hirers and workers.
I am pleased that, when we introduce new regulations to underpin this measure, we shall be removing three sets of regulations and replacing them with one set. We shall see a number of regulations fall by the wayside. There will be an overall reduction in the amount of regulation as a result of the proposals that we are bringing before the House.

Mr. Bercow: The Secretary of State's last point is of particular interest. In the light of the prospective reduction in regulation that he envisages, will he be a little more specific and tell us precisely what impact it will have on the net figure of 2,380 additional regulations that have spewed forth from the Government since 1 May 1997? What is the new figure? Will the right hon. Gentleman open Pandora's box and tell us?

Mr. Byers: Not in the precise terms in which the hon. Gentleman invites me to respond. However, in the final three years of the Conservative Government—I will

remind him of the figures because they should be placed on the record—we saw more than 10,000 regulations introduced.

Mr. Bercow: That was Hezza's fault.

Mr. Byers: It may have been the fault of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) as President of the Board of Trade.
We shall see a significant reduction in regulation. We shall see three sets of regulations with seven schedules reduced to one set with four schedules. There will be a relatively significant reduction in the number of pages of regulations, from 22 to 18. We are moving in the right direction. Instead of regulation escalating all the time—this applies to Governments of our persuasion and also to those of Conservative persuasion—at least with this measure we are beginning to see a reduction at long last. I hope that this is the beginning of a substantial reduction in the pages of regulations, the sets of regulations and the schedules that implement regulations.

Mr. Phil Woolas: It may be worth while to point out, for the record, that it was not only the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) who oversaw the deregulation unit. Also involved were the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) and the then hon. Member for Tatton, Mr. Hamilton. I wondered whether the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) would shake his head so vigorously given that information.

Mr. Byers: When the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who leads for the Opposition on these matters, was a Minister with responsibility for corporate affairs in the Department of Trade and Industry, he had a pretty bad record on regulation. We will reveal the figures in due course. Conservative Members will have to wait a while before we can open that particular Pandora's Box. I am sure that we will look forward to that with equal pleasure.
As I have said, the Bill begins the reduction of regulation. We want to do so in a way that modernises the approach to employment agencies. We do not want to create a revolution in the way in which the recruitment industry operates. The draft consultation document shows that we are seeking, in the main, to clarify existing standards and to eliminate those that are outdated.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am extremely surprised that the Secretary of State should say that there will be only a slight amendment to the regulations. Surely he understands the principle that interfering with a contract between an employment agency and the person doing the hiring of either permanents or temps, and banning temp to permanent fees, wholly undermines an industry which has 200,000 permanent employees and ensures that 900,000 people are in temporary work. We are seeing a fundamental change which could lead to the abolition of employment agencies.

5 pm

Mr. Byers: I think that I mentioned in my introductory remarks that I am leaving my detailed comments on those matters to when I reply to specific amendments. That seems to be appropriate. I shall respond when I have heard the arguments of Conservative Members.
We have produced draft regulations—and, indeed, are consulting upon them—because we have no doubt that improvements can be made. The consultation is genuine and if people can show me evidence of difficulties along the lines of those to which the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) referred, I will be prepared to look again at our approach to this matter. I do not have a closed mind and we have an opportunity to create a framework within which employment agencies, which have a crucial role to play, can work well and honestly in the future. I believe that we can achieve that and I want to achieve it together, rather than seek divisions on what is a genuine approach to the way in which we can move forward.
I know that the recruitment sector has a number of concerns. I hope that I will be able to offer some reassurance that our proposals are sound and will provide a basis for a strong and confident industry, which can look forward to a prosperous future. Many people will see opportunity in our proposals and I look forward to hearing their views, as well as those of Conservative Members and of hon. Members generally. I am sure that, based on those views, we will be able to introduce regulations that support the industry. I await with interest comments from Conservative Members on their amendments.

Mr. Boswell: I thank the Secretary of State for moving his amendment and I agree with the way in which he proposes to handle this rather complex group of amendments, which consists of a Government amendment, a Government new schedule and six amendments tabled by Conservative Members. If he has undertaken any detailed textual criticism of those amendments, he will know that they all have slightly different provenances. Nevertheless, all refer to an issue of considerable concern.
For reasons that may become apparent, I am becoming increasingly familiar with the ways of lawyers. It was perhaps a tribute to the Secretary of State's skills in that respect that he was able to move his amendment to what is undoubtedly the most contentious clause of the Bill in tones of such sweet reasonableness. We will probably have to take him at his word and answer him in his own terms.
I should record my considerable concern about the proposed means of proceeding. The Government are bent on consulting on new regulations. It would be welcome if, as a result, they turned out to be simpler, briefer and less intrusive on the activities of employment agencies, but on Tuesday of last week we had the remarkable experience on opening our post of being invited to consider 60 pages of a pre-consultation document, which was evidently delivered to us in circumstances of great secrecy and privilege. There was no realistic possibility of our studying the document before our proceedings began.
I should say at this point that the whole House will be waiting for the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), who knows about these things and will no doubt have a great deal to say on the details—indeed, I defer to his knowledge of the matter.
Be that as it may, the infelicity about consultation—it would have been nice if we had had it in time for us to think about the results before we debated them—has been compounded by the Government's introduction of new

schedule 2. There may be other occasions on which we would want to discuss the general handling of the Bill, but the new schedule runs to three pages of fairly closely typed print and it had been introduced without explanation, although the Secretary of State has now provided that. We are pleased to have had his explanation and I am even more gratified that it was coincident with my feeble understanding of what was intended.
We think that we know what we are about; as the Secretary of State said, it has to do with inspection and evidence. It is worth flagging up the point that it is becoming a habit for the Government to take the meat out of clauses, use them as paving measures and put all the meat into new schedules. New schedule 2 includes the meat of what we have been debating plus the new inspection provisions.
Perhaps we need not debate that method of drafting now, but there are concerns of substance and procedure relating to the new schedule. I was a little concerned when the Secretary of State said that it would make matters easier for agencies. When one hears that, one is always a little suspicious.
An example that might be congenial to the Secretary of State—and to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)—is a chilling description I once heard of a visit late at night by the then nationalist South African police, which was described as the "friendly knock" of the police. I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to reassure the House that his inspectors do not work on that basis.
The schedule embodies and extends new powers. Even if the Secretary of State has the greatest of good will, the powers may cause difficulties, particularly where agencies may not be sympathetic to the conduct of the legislation or anxious to be entirely compliant with it or the wishes of inspectors.
The Secretary of State is a lawyer, and I am not, and he has access to advice that I do not have. On Second Reading, he issued a certificate to the House that the provisions of the Bill were compliant with the European convention on human rights. He referred to convention cases that informed Government decisions. He has now tabled a new schedule, with direct implications for human rights.
I did not participate in the debates on the Human Rights Act 1998, and I am not clear whether the new schedule is automatically certificated as compliant with the convention, whether it is deemed to be compliant or whether it has not been considered. Clearly, the Secretary of State would like it to be compliant, as would the Opposition. However, the matter should be explained to the House.
Government amendment No. 59 has some superficial similarity to some of the amendments that we have tabled to delete subsections of clause 28. However, the Secretary of State proposes the insertion of an even bigger schedule. That schedule has arrived at the last minute, and the gap between the conclusion of the Committee and Report has been sadly compressed. We have not had enough time to table probing amendments to the schedule; nor have we had the opportunity to consider fully the matter with our advisers, who might wish to reconsider and make suggestions for another place. The Bill passes from our control shortly, but that does not mean that the issues should not be addressed.
Paragraph 3 of the proposed schedule refers to classes of cases that the Secretary of State may prescribe as exceptions. However, no reference is made to any criteria by which the Secretary of State should decide the cases. It will be important—if only because he will wish to avoid judicial review—for him to do so on a proper, procedural and principled basis. He might wish to explain to the House the kind of criteria that would be appropriate.
Paragraph 3(c) could abolish what is known in the trade as temp to perm fees, and would drive a coach and horses through the custom and practice of the operation of employment agencies and businesses in this country. I shall return to that when I deal with the amendments that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have tabled.
The Secretary of State referred to inspection and new powers. It is characteristic of the drafting of this legislation that paragraph 4 of new schedule 2 inserts new subsections in the Employment Agencies Act 1973, one of which provides a power to
enter any relevant business premises".
No restrictions are prescribed. There is no reference to entry at any reasonable time—not necessarily on notice—or entry with any reasonable force that might be appropriate to secure access. I think that there ought to be such restrictions. Nor is there any requirement for an inspector who has had to force an entry to make good any damage that he may have caused.
Paragraph 4(3), interestingly, states that an officer
may require any person on the premises … to inform him where and by whom the record, other document or information is kept".
That is a reasonable requirement if the person knows, but it is not very reasonable if the person does not know. I feel that there should be a safeguard to cover those who, in good faith, may not have such knowledge. At present, the requirement applies to
any person on the premises",
not any person who is likely to have the information in question. That could be a cleaning lady, a tea lady or some other member of staff. Indeed, in some cases data protection legislation might make it impossible for a person to release the information.
The proposed subsection (1B)(c) of section 9 refers to an officer having "reasonable cause to believe" that premises are being used
for the carrying on of a business by a person who also carries on or has carried on an employment agency or employment business".
The Secretary of State mentioned that extension of powers, and I understand it. I know that, as a term of art, officers are expected to act reasonably at all times, but I am not sure whether an officer should be required to make a formal declaration to that effect, or whether it should be assumed, if he goes on to look at other premises, that he has reached such a conclusion. I suspect that, as a safeguard in terms of human rights, he ought to be required to make a formal statement.
Let me make two more points about the new schedule. Both have been made in earlier debates, but I think they are important. Paragraph 4(6) refers to a restriction on the

disclosure of information. That is a widening provision, in that the release of information would no longer be tied to matters
pursuant to or arising out of the Act".
I am not sure that that is very safe. In Committee, the proposal coincided with press reports suggesting that, for example, the Child Support Agency and the Inland Revenue would be able to work more closely together.
There are some important safeguards, in terms of civil liberties, relating to the release of information by one Department to another. I think that, as a lawyer, the Secretary of State will want to ensure that those provisions are considered properly, and are proportionate only to any particular need.
My final point about the new schedule relates to the offences provisions, which have also been referred to in earlier debates. The Government want to increase the qualifying time from within six months following the offence in question to either
within 3 years after the date of the commission of the offence
or
within 6 months after the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the Secretary of State to justify the proceeding came to his knowledge.
I shall not repeat the arguments that have already been presented, but I feel that three years would be a bit long in some cases. Evidence might be destroyed, and difficulties might be caused even for parties acting with good will.
5.15 pm
Let me now deal with the Opposition amendments. We are not at all happy with the current drafting of clause 28. Amendment No. 1 proposes the omission of lines that redraft the Employment Agencies Act 1973, because we prefer the status quo. We do not think that the Government have yet made out a case for change. The 1973 Act was in itself a departure from the norm of non-partiality in business activities—the general principle that particular business sectors should not be subject to legislation unless there is a problem that must be dealt with.
The Government of the time were prepared to countenance legislation that imposed specific restrictions in relation to agencies, with which the Secretary of State is familiar. I shall not reopen that debate. Although some of his hon. Friends might have disagreed had they been present, the Secretary of State implied that employment agencies and businesses had conducted themselves well, that they were useful and that he wanted to help them; and I think that the legislative umbrella under which they operate has itself worked reasonably well. The Secretary of State owes it to the House to say a little more about why the Government consider this change necessary, especially as it will further restrict the activities of employment agencies.
The following three amendments are all designed to curtail what might be termed over-enthusiasm with regulations. Amendment No. 36 provides for
regulating the conduct of hirers in paying appropriate fees to such agencies and businesses".
It is less about the fees themselves than about the way in which hirers go about their business. Is it "oppressive", as I think the lawyers would say? Is it unfair? Or is it the reasonable conduct that a well-founded, properly run agency should be undertaking?
Amendment No. 2 takes a slightly different approach. It deals with the purpose of regulations, and suggests that they should be restricted to
the purpose of protecting employees' rights and not otherwise to interfere with the commercial relationship".
The Bill provides for such interference. If the Secretary of State can make out a case for saying that, without such provision, it would be impossible to safeguard employees' rights, and that, in the circumstances, it is reasonable, we shall consider it; but subversion of the basic operation of the market is something which, given his rhetoric, the Secretary of State appears not to want. Certainly Conservative Members do not want it.
Amendment No. 35 stresses the importance of preventing regulations from prejudicing
the ability of the private recruitment industry to continue to expand its role in the labour market.
It is a useful amendment. Indeed, those are useful agencies, and they should not be seen as being unduly restrictive. The Secretary of State says that he wants to help them; well, he should put his money, or his regulations, where his mouth is.
Amendment No. 3 deals with the main issue: an agency's ability to claw back recruitment fees if employer and employee conclude a private arrangement for permanent employment—the so-called temp to perm arrangement. Such fees are analogous to the fee that would have been levied had the employer taken on the employee from an agency on a permanent basis in the first place. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset is an expert; but I cannot see that it is wrong to secure that in principle. The two cases are virtually the same. It is not a restraint of trade. The Government may, even if they do not intend to, preclude that arrangement and they should not do so.
The thrust of our concerns is summarised in amendment No. 34, which, in effect, subjects any subsequent regulations to the affirmative resolution procedure. I have mentioned our considerable disquiet about the way in which the legislation was chucked at us. Now that there will be consultation, there are opportunities for the Government to redeem themselves.
In fairness to the Government, in other areas, they have shown a readiness to listen to proposals, either voluntarily, or as a result of proposals that we have put to them. For example, the affirmative resolution procedure will be invoked in relation to clause 3, which deals with black lists, on which we spent some time last night. The Government have also promised that the affirmative resolution procedure will be used in relation to clause 16.
Apparently, the Government are no longer set against the use of that procedure. I agree with that because these are important matters of principle to get right. We say modestly that, even if we are not the world's greatest experts on these matters, we have an important lay role in saying that legislation does not seem to be quite right and that, if the Government want to get it right, they should look at it again.
I have set out an initial response to the Government's new schedule and expressed some concerns about the powers that it sets out. The amendments set out several ways in which the danger, as we see it, of restricting and regulating the important employment agency sector out of sight and out of existence could be curtailed.
We have noted the Secretary of State's rhetoric, but we remain deeply suspicious of it—the alleged intentions are not consistent with what is being delivered in the Bill. We await not only the contributions of other hon. Members, but the right hon. Gentleman's response on the amendments because, at the moment, we are far from satisfied and may have to put that dissatisfaction to the test.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I have seldom had a speech trailed so thoroughly. I hope that I will not disappoint colleagues, who have been told of my supposed expertise.
I repeat what I have said in all such debates: I have a declaration of non-interest, although people may believe that I have an interest. I should tell the House exactly the position. I ran an employment agency for 12 years. It is a limited company which, until the licensing of employment agencies was cut, had a licence. It is supposed to be an employment agency, but has not traded for the 11 years that I have been a Member of Parliament.
Although I advised the Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services until the general election, I am not an adviser to that organisation now. I think that I am right in saying that I do not have a single penny of income coming from any employment agency source. I hope that, in making that clear, I am also showing that I have some 12 years' experience of trying to make my living running an employment agency. That is important information.
We started consideration of clause 28 in the dark about what the Government intended. They had had consultations with a number of organisations, including FRES. Indeed, FRES was quite calm about what was happening because it did not believe that the Government intended to implement the policy in the Labour 1983 manifesto, which was to abolish employment agencies as a matter of urgency. When one hears the rhetoric coming from Government, one is encouraged to believe that new Labour recognises that employment agencies and employment businesses are part of the flexible labour market that it is now supposedly signed up to.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: There has been talk about the history of the legislation. Does my hon. Friend recall that my pair—if we had pairs—the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), referred to the 1983 Labour manifesto as the longest suicide note in history? Does my hon. Friend think that the Bill will turn out to be the same?

Mr. Bruce: Unfortunately, the Labour party has become adept at not telling people what its real intentions are. It is called spin; it is good at it. Many of us will learn from it when it comes to the next general election. It has been careful not to sign suicide notes, but that does not mean that there is no conspiracy. However—I hope that the Secretary of State is listening—I was pleased with what he said about genuinely consulting on the Government's document.
We did not know what the Government's intentions were. We had a clue. It was in a press notice that was dated 25 September 1998 and released by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It said that, in the modernisation—a wonderful word, but I always prefer


"improvement"; we are always keen to see improvement and everything can be improved—of employment agencies, issues to be covered included the
need to ensure proper standards on reference checking",
no one has any worries about that,
rules requiring agencies to pay workers promptly and fully",
again, one has no arguments about that; it was already covered in the previous legislation,
and an obligation on agencies holding clients' money to safeguard it properly.
Who could argue with those things? A few cowboys might have been worried about that, but, clearly, FRES and all employment agencies that were not cowboys and were running their businesses properly were not concerned at all.
The press release said that we would see a consultation document by the end of 1998. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) pointed out, that consultation document arrived on the Tuesday morning that I made my initial speech on clause 28. We did not have the opportunity—perhaps during one of the pauses for breath while I read the document—to see some of the things that were in the consultation document. In fact, it stood the Employment Agencies Act 1973 on it head.
The House should understand that that Act was a Conservative private Member's Bill, but that the regulations that came from the Act were enacted in 1976 by the then Labour Government. I have a little advice on that. The Minister at the time was Harold Walker, now Lord Walker of Doncaster. who served as a distinguished Deputy Speaker of the House. I understand that he put his reputation on the line because he had understood what the industry was saying and resisted old Labour's push to get him to interfere with the proper working relationships in the industry. Perhaps he was new Labour, even back then. He decided that it was not an industry which we should attack, but one that should flourish.
Amendment No. 35 includes the somewhat strange words:
Provided that regulations under this section shall only be made in such a way as to avoid prejudice to the ability of the private recruitment industry to continue to expand its role in the labour market.
Those words come directly from the draft consultation document. That is confidential, but I hope that the Secretary of State will not object to its words being used in the amendment. That is what the Government say they want to do, but, under the regulations—certainly, the draft regulations seem to suggest it—they will close the industry, or at least damage it seriously.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is a tremendous authority on these subjects. Given that this is our final opportunity to debate employment agencies, does my hon. Friend agree that it is regrettable that the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) is not present? In the Standing Committee, the hon. Gentleman cited an example of appalling bad practice by an employment agency, giving the impression that it was in his constituency. Does my hon. Friend recall, however, that when challenged, the hon. Gentleman was not prepared to confirm that the culprit

agency was in his constituency, or to name it? The effect is that a cloud of suspicion hangs over all employment agencies in Corby or in close proximity to it. Should that matter not be cleared up as it has created considerable uncertainty and confusion?

Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend has jumped ahead to a point I had intended to reach. The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) has three times given his example on the Floor of the House. At least, I assume it was the same example; each time he told the tale, it altered slightly.

Mr. Bercow: It did not improve in the telling.

Mr. Bruce: It certainly did not. The Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services believes that such a case did exist some years ago. The agency involved was investigated, and it ceased to practise some years ago. The federation's disciplinary procedures also make it clear that any agency employing such practices would be declined membership or kicked out of FRES. That was appropriate self-regulation before the minimum wage came in, and the minimum wage regulations also deal with the matter.
It is fallacious to suggest that regulations are required in the new Bill. None of the regulations suggested by the Government seeks to deal with the matter. When we considered the regulations in advance, it seemed that the new clauses would do so. The federation and other bodies were not concerned because bad practice will always occur—perhaps in 1 or 2 per cent. of businesses, or even more. No one in the industry wants the Government to stop taking action against bad practice, but that is not dealt with in the draft regulations.

Mr. Bercow: If it is accurate, my hon. Friend's intelligence on this matter is extremely helpful to the House. Although he is not psychic, does my hon. Friend surmise that his intelligence might explain the absence of the hon. Member for Corby, who will be well aware that it would be a serious matter knowingly to mislead the House? Might the hon. Gentleman know that the example that he gave in a bid to whip up hysteria is dead and bogus, and that he dare not reproduce it this afternoon?

Mr. Bruce: In Committee, we shot the hon. Gentleman's fox. The record makes it is clear that employment agencies in Corby can hold their heads up high. Although their Member of Parliament has slagged them off, they have proved that they are of the highest standard.

Mr. Ian Stewart: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has tried to vilify a Labour Member by claiming that my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) did not give details of a particular company. If Conservative Members read Hansard for Standing Committee E, however, they will find that Members on their own side stated that several agencies fitted the bill, but did not give any details. It is all in Hansard.

Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman should check his facts. I have a complete set of the Committee Hansard which I should be happy to give him if he would like to check.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: Would the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) care to tell us in which columns we can find the allegations that we made against employment agencies in our own constituencies?

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, but we should not embarrass the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart), whose contribution to the Committee was very valuable. He has told me off several times for praising him too much. Apparently, genuine praise from this quarter is unwelcome, and he is once again embarrassed by it. His contribution to the Committee was extremely good, as were those of several of his colleagues. I should mention the excellent whipping of the Bill, which got it out of Committee exactly on time, although I do not want to damage anyone else's reputation by saying so.
I acknowledge that new schedule 2, which abolishes clause 28 by replacing it with a much longer schedule, goes some way towards solving the problem of allowing inspectors to enter premises to investigate almost any crime. The new schedule was published only on Thursday, and I did not see it until this week. I do not know of anyone who has read it in detail and produced a definitive view of how it affects employment agencies.
That is not the right way to introduce legislation. The new schedule has not been examined line by line, and we do not have the time to do so on the Floor of the House. I am sure that the Government have tabled the new schedule in good faith to try to deal with problems raised in Committee. However, a two-and-a-half page new schedule is replacing a page-long clause, and we have not examined it in detail. That puts Parliament in a difficult position. We are telling employment agencies that we have, during the few days of Report and Third Reading, created a new schedule that has not been properly debated.
Amendment No. 34 seeks to provide for positive resolution on this point. I hope that the Minister will give us that comfort. We rightly pay tribute to the Government when they do listen, and they were quick in Committee to say that they would allow positive resolution on virtually all other issues raised. This is a major part of the Bill—perhaps even a Bill within the Bill—and it requires time in Committee.
I am worried that draft regulations may be published in a few weeks' time, examined and reported on in May or June, and made on the last day of Parliament, which is exactly what happened with regulations on holiday pay contained in the working time regulations. The regulations would then come in a month later without any chance of discussion, even though we would be able, under the positive resolution procedure, to discuss them when we return in October. If the Minister considers the matter honestly, he will know that people could not ask their Members of Parliament what those regulations meant to them. That is no way in which to introduce major change in an industry that has many employees.
Until quite late in the proceedings, I had not appreciated that, interestingly, the Government have made a regulatory impact assessment of the Bill. Although the House should welcome the Government making such assessments, the problem is that—as hard as I looked—I could not find in that document one word about the regulations' effect on employment agencies. Extraordinarily, there was also no mention in it of cost

compliance. Ministers have acknowledged that they are planning to introduce many regulations on the issue, but they have not even addressed the issue in the document. I hope that the Government will do the other place the courtesy of providing some type of impact assessment.
We are not talking about a minor part of our economy. The Government themselves believe that, on any one day, 900,000 temporary workers are out working. Therefore, today, 900,000 workers will finish their work, probably at about 5.30 pm, and will expect to be paid for that work. About 200,000 people are employed as permanent staff in employment agencies—attempting to find permanent jobs for people—and in employment businesses, which attempt to hire people out. They comprise about 3 per cent. of the United Kingdom work force.
To get even close to the number of people who would be affected by the regulations, we would have to add together the number of all those employed in the national health service, which is three quarters of a million people, and in the motor industry. We could also add in the number of Members of Parliament. We have to be extraordinarily careful about passing restrictions that will affect all those who take temporary work and the 380,000 people who gain permanent work each year through employment agencies.
Many people who study employment in the United Kingdom and the world say that ever more people are working in service industries. Some people might even say that employment agencies have no positive impact—other than to help other businesses to do more effectively what they do—and that it is a purely service industry. However, closing down or restricting that industry would affect the employment not only of the 200,000 people who work in it, but of the 900,000 people who gain temporary work through it. Such action could also restrict the speed at which the 380,000 people whom it helps to look for permanent work find jobs.

Mr. John Hayes: My hon. Friend is making his point well, but I should like to develop it a little further, and link it to one of his earlier points. Restricting the industry would disproportionately affect certain types of work and jobs. Employment agencies provide particular types of work to a very large group of employees, and are the principal source of employment in certain types of jobs. Restricting the agencies would therefore have a disproportionate effect on certain parts of the labour market, and it is difficult to imagine another type of agency filling the gap.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—he has provided a neat point at which to give an example. I shall use as an example the operation of hon. Members' offices—with which we are all familiar. Let us say that, on a Monday morning, an hon. Member discovers that his or her secretary has taken ill or has had a home emergency. We might decide that, for the next week or so, we shall not answer our correspondence, but catch up later—perhaps expecting those who work for us to work that much harder. It is very difficult for parliamentary secretaries to work any harder than they do; we all know the volume of correspondence that they deal with. Those who work in business are faced with the same decision on whether temporarily to take on someone to help with the work.
It is good for the United Kingdom economy, for employment and for temporary employees if a temporary employee can arrive at a workplace within hours of someone picking up a telephone and saying, "We have a problem; someone has not come in today. Can you get someone down here to take over?"
The temp will be told over the telephone how much he or she will be paid. The amount often varies, depending on the job. Very often, secretarial temps might work as a personal assistant on one day, as a clerical assistant the next day, and in answering the telephone on another day.
Employment agencies try to get the best possible rate for the job. Many Labour Members seem to think that agencies try to pay the temp the lowest possible amount and to charge him or her out at the highest possible amount. In reality, everyone knows what a temp is being paid when he or she walks through the door. It is very much a cost-plus situation. If one is paying £7 an hour and employer's national insurance, the amount charged by an agency is that amount plus whatever mark-up it is trying to get. Therefore, very often, it is in temp agencies' interests to obtain higher wages for temps. Sometimes, however, agencies cannot send someone out at the desired rate, but will accept a lower rate, of which they will inform the temp. The individual does not accept the job until he or she knows the rate.
5.45 pm
The regulations would prevent someone going from a job paying £7 an hour to a subsequent job paying £6 an hour until that individual had come in to the agency and signed a contract saying that he or she agrees the variation. Under current regulations, within 24 hours—it is a very tight time frame—a rate can be agreed over the telephone, and, in that evening's post, the temp will receive a contract stating how much they will be paid, and the company will receive a contract stating how much it will be charged. Under the new regulations, temps would have to sign a piece of paper stating, "I'm aware of the change, and I agree to it." If it is all done by post, they will be able to start work in about three days' time.

Mr. John Healey: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that everyone does not know what a temp is earning when they walk through the door? One of the problems for employers who use employment agencies is that they do not necessarily know—and often cannot find out—how much the temp they have engaged via an agency is being paid. Therefore, employers also have no idea of the commission that is being taken by an agency. Does he accept that the regulations and new schedule 2 will help in that process—which many clients find to be an opaque one?

Mr. Bruce: I do not think that the regulations will necessarily allow an employer to know the rate. People often say that one should not put up on a board what everyone in the organisation is earning, but that one should pay people as if that information will be put up on a board—in other words, one must be fair. Temps certainly do know the various available pay rates.
Perhaps the Government's desire to deal with pay rate variations is based on the fact that two temps may go to the same organisation to do the same job, but be charged

out and paid at different rates. Such a situation sometimes disturbs the work environment. Those in the industry might say, "Unless one is paying temps at a sensible rate, they will leave one agency and go to another."
We thought that the Government were concerned about people's ability to be flexible in marketing themselves, by going from one agency to another. However, in the regulations, they seem to be trying to deal with almost everything but that.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government seem to assume that the 900,000 people who are temping are doing so because they have been thrown on the scrap heap of life, and that they are being exploited by temporary agencies? More often than not, however, people seek temporary work because they enjoy the flexibility that temp work provides. They are able to do different jobs on different days, whereas, on other days, they are free to look after their children, to do the shopping, or whatever. They enjoy that flexibility, which would be restrained and constrained by the Government's proposals.

Mr. Bruce: I believe that Ministers and some of the members of the Standing Committee understand that. However, generally people are hostile to temping. People must understand that there are those who temp because that is how they want to do their business. There is also a group of people who do not want to temp, but want a permanent job.
There would be unintended consequences if the Government stop the temp-to-perm fees.

Mr. Hayes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Bruce: I shall just develop my point. I do not want to lose track of what I am saying. [Interruption.] All right, I will give way.

Mr. Hayes: I shall give my hon. Friend pause for breath and thought. The key point is that not only is there a group of people who are happy with the flexibility my hon. Friend described—he is right about that—but employers are well aware of that fact, and are aware of the good agencies and those that are not so good. I have found from my business and commercial experience that employers build up a relationship with two or three agencies on which they -know that they can call because they are reliable. There is no mystery about that, and there is not a great deal of mystery about the standards of those agencies and the prices they charge or pay. It is not always a jungle out there, which is what some Labour Members would have us believe. There is a fair amount of knowledge on the part of the temps and those using them which tempers the worst excesses that are sometimes caricatured by Labour Members.

Mr. Bruce: Having had my train of thought disturbed I shall now return—

Miss Kirkbride: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his wonderful command of the detail of this legislation. His speech is illuminating for Conservative Members and, I suspect, for Labour Members. I should like to be clear about what he is saying about the notification period for


a change in the hourly rate. There are many people who enjoy temping who may be cross if they cannot have a job that suits their arrangements in a particular week because of the notice period. I am not sure what my hon. Friend is saying about the time involved in the notice period if a telephone call is not enough.

Mr. Bruce: The current regulations are quite clear. If the terms of employment are to be changed from one week to another, an agency can ring someone and say that the terms are different—hopefully, they will be better. However, if someone is working as a personal assistant in a top company for a few weeks and then has to accept a copy typing job because that is all that is on offer, the pay will not be as much. The person may then say, "If there is nothing else for me, that is fine." A fresh contract will then be sent by first-class post and the employment agency will have done what it needs to do.
Under the regulations suggested by the Government, once they had agreed by telephone to work for a certain amount of money, it would be an offence for people to carry out that work until they had signed a contract to say that the terms were different and that they were willing to accept that. We are talking about people who might be contacted at 10 o'clock in the morning because somebody has not turned up for work because of ill health.
Under the proposed regulations, that individual would either have to go to the agency to sign the contract and perhaps lose a day's work or, if that were not possible, they would have to wait to receive the contract in the post, sign it and then return it. It would then be Wednesday or Thursday before they could work. They could not go until the contract is in the hands of the agency because it would be an offence not to have a signed contract. The bureaucracy is silly.
It is important for hon. Members to understand what sort of people might want to temp and what sort might want permanent jobs. Married women with children of school age are often able to come back to do secretarial work without having to work during the school holidays. They may also want time off if their child is to have an operation or to deal with any other domestic emergency. The temp controller ensures that that is taken into account.
During the school holidays, undergraduates or students at technical college may be available for work and some of them may have secretarial skills. They are available at exactly the same time, perhaps with an overlap, as the children are away from school. That is a perfect flexible market. There are two groups of workers, one that wants only temporary contracts, and the other willing to temp, but wanting a permanent vacancy. The regulations are attempting to stop the temp-to-perm process. Temp people would be sent only to where there is a permanent vacancy and a shortlist of those who want permanent work would be sent later.
A company that wants to take on permanent staff now can ring an employment agency and ask for a temp. If that temp proves to be good, the company may not advertise or ask the agency to send a shortlist, but may take them on as a permanent member of staff. The normal way of dealing with that is that a permanent fee is charged. It may be that £10 or £20 is being made on the margin while those people are temping and a recruitment fee is paid at the end of that time. I do not want to see the unintended consequence of employment agencies sending out only those who want to be temps and providing a separate shortlist of those who want permanent work.
Some people may become unemployed as temps simply because they are looking for permanent work. Temping is a good way for people to get back into permanent employment and to keep their skills up to date. Sometimes those returning to work, particularly women, want to work at a lower skill level because they do not believe that they have sufficient skills. From running employment agencies I have found that people who say that they can no longer do any shorthand or typing often turn out to be brilliant shorthand typists. Those skills can then be developed while working as a temp, specifically to get back into permanent work. There comes a time in women's careers in particular when the age of their children is the crucial factor in deciding whether they need to stay at home during the school holidays. If the children can stay on their own or go elsewhere, women do not need to stop work during the school holidays.
I am worried that the Government's proposals for the temp-to-perm process will mean that employees are no longer used in that flexible way. In fact, I would go a step further. I believe that this is crucial and that the Government do not understand what they are doing. If a company wants a temp urgently, it can ring the agency and ask for one. The agency may be making a few pounds an hour on top of the cost of delivering that individual. The company may believe that that is a bit steep, but agree to it because it has to have that person.
If there is no requirement for that company to pay a permanent fee, it could decide to employ that person directly as a temp. The employment agency would have used its skill in advertising, interviewing and checking skills and so on. That is a reason to prevent employers who are using the skills of the employment agency from employing an individual directly without paying the agency what it has agreed to pay under the terms of the temp contract. A company might cease the temp contract early and take the person on as a temporary worker, working directly for the company.
That is the temp to perm arrangement which would ensure that any individual trying to run a temporary employment business could be undermined by employers, who would say, "No, I don't have to pay a fee if I take this person directly on to the books." That would have unsatisfactory consequences, in particular for what the Government are trying to do.
6 pm
Employment rights are what the Government are about. Although we would not go down the regulatory route, we understand that they have a mandate to deliver that. Let us imagine the situation. Someone starts off at a temp bureau and undertakes a series of temporary assignments for one employer. After three months, he or she would receive all the usual employment rights—one qualifies for some after one month and for others after six. If individuals decided to swap and change, rather than stay with the one contractor—if they worked for one company for one week, under contract to the agency, were directly employed by the company for three weeks and then returned to the agency for another one week contract or whatever—that would break up the continuity of employment and deprive them of the employment rights that the Government have been struggling to give them. It would ruin their holiday pay, sick pay, maternity pay


and all the other benefits that the Government say that they want. Those would be the unintended consequences of this measure.
I will not speak at great length about what one hon. Member has tried to tell people about the £1 an hour penalty clause. As I said, the employment agency industry works through its reputation for being fair to the employers to whom it is providing staff and to its employees.
I started off with three employment agencies in one town and I ended up with one. Unfortunately, my agencies were so successful that another five started up. We paid our temps more money and we gave employers a better service. That is how one succeeds. I had a temp controller who insisted that we should constantly try to get higher rates for our people and better people because that was the way forward. Employers wanted really good temps—well paid and well motivated—and that was the right way forward.
It is no business of the Government or of Parliament to decide how much people should be charged. In general, minimum wages do not affect employment agencies that much, but the minimum wage regulations have already been introduced. There is no requirement in this legislation or in the regulations to suggest that the Government are trying to decide that. They say that they are simply going down this route to stop restraint of trade when people who are taken on on a temporary contract do not convert to permanent employment because the company has to pay a fee. Clearly, that is not correct, because employment agencies make about 20 per cent. of their permanent placements directly through that route. I assure the Minister that it is a great deal more profitable to give a permanent job to temps, in particular outside London where plenty are available, than to take on a permanent employee directly.
It is suggested that some agencies, instead of charging a direct, normal, permanent recruitment fee, charge more to stop temps moving across. It would not upset employment agencies if the Government introduced regulations to stop that practice and to prevent employment businesses from charging more for a temp to go permanent than for someone who had been sent for an interview for a permanent post. Indeed, the businesses might suggest that people who temp for longer periods could go to the employer at a reduced rate—many companies already do so.
We thought that the Government were working on measures to deal with contract workers—people who work in an employment business, but are really being supervised to do a particular job of work. I am minded of organisations that provide telephonists. In this place, the telephonists are employed not by the House of Commons, but by a company that provides a service to the House. That also happens at Buckingham palace, the Treasury and—dare I say it—No. 10 Downing street. Recently, the company that everyone wants all employment agencies to resemble lost the contract at No. 10. Surprisingly, the Government seem to be almost recommending a number of the measures that we thought they were worried about, for example, zero-hours contracts. When someone works for Manpower—let us use that example, to avoid

confusion—he or she is taken on on a zero-hours contract to be a permanent employee, but only when he or she works. That is one way around the regulations.
I thought that the House was upset about the fact that burger bars and suchlike use zero-hours contracts. Certainly, we think that a temp should know that he or she is being hired for so many hours, give or take a few. The arrangement should be fairly flexible and the temp should know that the contract might end early—someone who thought that he or she might be off ill for a fortnight could come back early, so the contract would end. Generally, temps who are sent in to do a week's work end up doing two, three or four weeks. It is the job of the temp controller and the employment business—the agency—to keep people working as much as possible, which is surely what the Government want.
The draft regulations would have another unintended consequence for people on a contract for services. The Government have noticed that, where carers go to individual homes, the little old lady who is receiving the care becomes the employer and is not charged the whole fee as though the entire contract is for services. The wages and national insurance are in effect paid by the little old lady and are shown separately on the invoice, while the margin that the company charges is put on the invoice and value added tax is charged only on that margin. That is a way to ensure that value added tax is not charged on top of the hourly rate paid to people who work for someone who cannot claim back VAT. No one goes through that convoluted rigmarole when putting temps into a company that is VAT registered and can claim the VAT back. The Government may want to ensure that the employment relationship is clear. Employment agencies are not in the business of attempting to get out of their responsibilities for employees. I urge the Minister to consider carefully before collecting VAT from old ladies who are buying care in their own homes because they have been given money by the Government to do so. No one intended them to pay VAT.
Perhaps supplying labour should be zero-rated. After all, when someone works for wages, he or she does not charge the employer VAT for having done so. There have been cases that prove that employment agencies can work around that anomaly—sometimes the Revenue wins, sometimes it loses—and ensure that individuals do not have to pay VAT that cannot be claimed back because they are not a business.
References are another issue. I do not think that employment agencies are too worried about a sensible regime on references. However, we get into all sorts of problems when tight regulations are involved. Let me give some suggestions. When someone comes to an employment agency, it is not certain that that person will be employed by it. People have interviews and the agency tries to place them. It is often not convenient, particularly if someone wants a permanent position, to seek references for that person at that point. The best method must be to telephone the company that the person is supposed to be working for and asking, when that person has supposedly given notice, for a reference over the phone or in writing. If people are lying about who they work for, that is when one usually finds that they are wrong 'tins. One cannot take the reference until the contract has been signed. People who were not wrong 'tins would lose their jobs if one rang up their employers for references before they had


given in their notice. That would destroy the employer's confidence in them. It is important that the regulations deal with real, sensible things.
It is not necessary to go to the nth degree and check whether secretaries have the Royal Society of Arts qualifications that they say they have. After all, if one places a temp who claims to have shorthand, RSA stage III and all the rest of it, but clearly does not know one end of a typewriter from the other, that person's contract will cease, and the employment agency will not get paid for putting the person in. Under the minimum wage regulations, the agency will still have to pay such temps, despite their having lied through their teeth about their qualifications. The practical aspects are probably more important.
Of course, if one sends someone out as a heavy goods vehicle driver, one wants to see the HGV licence—indeed, to see the real licence, photocopy it and get the guy to sign that for the record. That is good, common-sense practice. If employment agencies send people out without the appropriate licence, the legal document necessary, under common law, they could be liable for what happens. We must be careful not to have too much bureaucracy.
There is something amazing about the regulations. As one reads them to try to find what the Government are up to, one finds that, right at the end, they want to repeal the regulation that stops an employment agency that has placed someone permanently in a company ringing that person up a month later to say "You've done your month. We do not have to give any money back. Do you fancy another job?" That is very bad practice. Employment agencies do not think that that should happen. The regulation stops that, but the Government want to repeal it. That is extraordinary. It is there to stop the cowboys and is in the interests of employment agencies that do the job properly, but it is being removed.

Mr. Hayes: I am interested by my hon. Friend's last point, because that happened to me in my commercial experience. This reinforces his argument that employers soon get to recognise the agencies that behave like that and do not use them. Firms set up relationships with agencies for particular sorts of employees—indeed, we frequently used agencies when we needed a receptionist or telephonist. Companies will stick with agencies that conduct themselves professionally. Repealing this regulation will only foster the cowboys whom we would rather avoid.

Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend's point is sensible.
We would be out of order if we considered in detail the draft regulations that the Minister was kind enough to give us. They cannot be covered on Report, despite the fact that we did not have them to deal with properly in Committee. I hope that I can get his attention so that he can give some pledges when he replies and do what he said that he would do at the outset. He should consider the regulations from the point of view of allowing employment agencies to continue to thrive and flourish.
The Opposition do not believe in over-regulation. We think that self-regulation and many other things work very well. However, we accept that the Government have a mandate to regulate for what they see as employees' rights. Employment agencies are not going to resist what

the Government have a mandate to produce, but they must be able to operate sensibly. We must understand that a temporary employee or someone applying for a permanent job can act independently of employment agencies and businesses. They can take out temporary contracts with employers. Much bar work and casual labour work in the leisure industry are done in that way. Some employees work through employment agencies. I contend that, in law, individuals, whether employed directly by an employer or by an employment agency, should be treated equally. However, I allow that individuals working in an agency might feel that they do not have enough power of negotiation and might wish the Government to protect their rights. Sensible regulations have therefore been accepted by employment agencies over many years, and they have worked successfully. The industry has developed.
The industry is usually relaxed about regulation. When I ran an employment agency in Yorkshire, it was great to have a licence. If Mrs. Smith decided to run an employment agency because she used to be a temp and thought it would be a great way to make money, which is how my two rivals started, I could close it down for three months. After its first advert for temps, I could ring the Department of Employment and say that someone was starting an employment agency. The Department would send an inspector or write a letter to say that a licence was necessary. A licence could be got without difficulty, but it used to take at least three months. The local authority had to check for planning permission; lots of forms had to be filled in—all the usual bureaucracy. It was great. I paid about £100 a year and had a restraint of trade on anyone who wanted to start competing with me.
Before I started my employment agency, I had been made redundant and had decided to start a management consultancy. As part of the base for that, I was going to have an office services bureau which would make lots of money. I set up the bureau and had people with typewriters and everything else. I spent all the money. I thought that I was a great marketing expert, but, however my cheap my service, I could not grow the bureau fast enough.
I thought, "God, what am I going to do?" The guy who was made redundant with me told me that he was doing interviews for employment agencies. He told me that I should start an employment agency because I would make a fortune. It was foolish; I had an office services bureau sitting there and had interviewed a lot of secretaries. Then I realised that I had an asset in the group whom I had employed and the group whom I could not employ, but who were really good, and that I could start an employment agency. I started almost overnight by ringing a few local companies and saying that I had some super secretaries for their vacancies and asking whether I could send some people around. That is how I started my employment agency. I suspect that if I had not got those early placements, I would have gone out of business very quickly. It is amazing how one can spend money setting up a business.
If I had had to wait the three months that the old system used to allow for, I would never have started. The two existing businesses would still be working today and BOS Recruitment would never have been born. That shows how employment agencies and the Federation of


Recruitment and Employment Services can be keen on ensuring that there are regulations to protect existing agencies and not necessarily to allow new entrants.

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham): I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is speaking with great knowledge on this important subject. I wonder whether he thinks that the Government should look again at this rather cumbersome and lengthy draft new schedule in the light of the recently agreed Cabinet policy, which we heard about earlier this week, that regulations should be both necessary and proportionate. I know that my hon. Friend feels that in some ways regulation is necessary, although not always for the best of reasons, but is the new schedule proportionate? Can he draw on his experience to tell us whether the Government should take it back because it is clearly not proportionate to the problem that they have identified?

Mr. Bruce: The Government often come out with extremely good statements of intent. They say that they want to ensure that regulations are proportionate and do not go overboard, but, in trying to regulate, they suddenly discover that regulations beget regulations, and that loopholes appear that then require another set of regulations. That is why the draft consultation document, which runs to 70 pages, was necessary just to say what clause 28 would do. The Government have discovered that they needed to write new schedule 2 because clause 28 was not long enough.

Mr. Byers: I welcome the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) to this important debate. It is a shame that he was not here at the beginning of the debate, given its importance. Had he been here, he would have heard me announce that, as a result of our amendment, we are reducing three sets of regulations to one and seven schedules to four. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes that approach.

Mr. Bruce: Although the point was made to my right hon. Friend, I am sure that he will allow me to answer on his behalf. I am sure—

Mr. Byers: Let him answer.

Mr. Bruce: My right hon. Friend cannot make a speech while I am making a speech, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me. I am sure that you will remind him of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I allow that the Government set out to reduce the number of regulations, but since last Tuesday, when we discussed clause 28 in Committee, the Government have produced new schedule 2, which is twice the length of clause 28. On the Tuesday before we started discussing clause 28, we received draft regulations of 70 pages.
If the Government went through the existing regulations and struck through 50 per cent. of what was there, of course the industry would say that that was good. The words might even be clearer. But that is not what happens. The Government go off with good intentions of simplifying the regulations for employment agencies. I wrote an article for The Interviewer magazine in which I asked whether we should be concerned about the

regulations or should panic about them. The industry is now panicking. I cannot pass out the draft regulations to all and sundry, because they still have not been made public. When the one person to whom I have shown them saw them, she panicked about what they contained. I accept that the Secretary of State is sincere in saying that he wants to remove regulations, but I am afraid that it is not happening.

Mr. Redwood: Of course I would have liked to be here to hear the remarks of the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend, who is speaking so well, but I went to the shadow Cabinet. Perhaps the Secretary of State agrees that, given the momentous events unfolding here and elsewhere, it was important that I was at the meeting. I was subsequently briefed by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister of State, who was here to listen to the earlier part of the debate.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the length of the regulations is not the only issue, although he rightly says that the latest version is long? The impact on business is also an issue. Only last night, the Secretary of State turned down the opportunity to exempt all small business from this rigmarole. That is why we are still unhappy about the proposals. We would prefer it if he exempted small business from the regulations so that their incredible cost is not imposed on it.

Mr. Bruce: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point, which I will not attempt to paraphrase.
When the Labour party was in opposition, it wrote in its 1983 manifesto that it would make employment agencies and businesses illegal. I suspect that such a measure could be encapsulated in a small number of regulations, but I predict confidently that if the Minister wants to restrict what contracts can be made between an employment agency or business and an employer who wants to take on staff, the regulations that we have now will pale into insignificance.
No one bothers to go to law about regulations that are reasonable and sensible, but if the Government try to outlaw practices that are normal and sensible and have worked well over the years, their regulations will be tested in the courts. I know that the Secretary of State's officials will be spending an awful lot of time, paper and ink in producing the regulations.

Miss Kirkbride: I served on the Standing Committee with my hon. Friend. The draft regulations were presented to us on the morning when we were meant to debate clause 28. That was breathtaking in itself. They were not to be made available to the employment agency industry. With his superior knowledge, does my hon. Friend have any idea when the industry might see the regulations? It would be wrong if the Bill were to pass through both Houses and become law before the industry could make its representations. However clever my hon. Friend is, there may be things that he has not noticed, and that it is necessary to draw to the attention of the Government.

Mr. Bruce: I would like to answer my right hon. Friend—I am sorry, I meant my hon. Friend; I am sure that, one day, she will become my right hon. Friend—on the Government's intentions. When I was asked the same question by the Federation of Recruitment and


Employment Services, I rather cynically said that it would be when the Government had already got their Bill through the House of Lords and it had become an Act. We wanted to alert people, but when we asked the Under-Secretary whether we could make it public, he said, "No, we are not too keen on that." The 200,000 people in permanent employment for agencies and businesses would make the lorry drivers, farmers and the rest look like nothing demonstrating outside this place. It was clear that their employment would be under threat. Perhaps they do not know it yet, but the 900,000 people who do temporary work through employment agencies and the 380,000 who find permanent jobs every year through agencies may find that they no longer receive such an effective service.
If legislation is introduced that stops an employment agency making money in one way, agencies are bound to make it in some other way. Employment agencies are not something that can print money: they have to make a profit and they compete with other people. I know that because I ran one for a long period. In the first three or four years, I dared not show my bank manager what I was doing, because I was living off my savings. It takes an awful lot of money to set up an agency. If the Government are sincere in saying that they want employment agencies and businesses to be part of the flexible labour market in the United Kingdom—I accept the words in the draft document—the regulations that come after those comforting words must be wholly different from what the Government intend now.
The Minister has a mandate to regulate to protect employees who work through employment agencies and businesses. We do not argue against that, but the Government cannot reduce the employment opportunities of individuals.
I have given way extensively, and perhaps that has extended my remarks more than I intended.

Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bruce: How could I resist the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Stewart: Earlier, the hon. Gentleman asked why my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) was not in the Chamber and why, in a statement to the Committee, my hon. Friend had not given the name of a particular company. I intervened to point out that the hon. Gentleman had mentioned two companies without giving their names. I was asked to give the details from Hansard and I shall do so now—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make such long interventions.

Mr. Bruce: I invite the hon. Member for Eccles to buy me a drink after the debate and we shall discuss the matter; I am sure that we shall be able to sort it out. I suspect that, by not naming the companies, I was acting positively and trying not to advertise particular organisations—for example, those that now provide

services in No. 10 Downing street. If I advertised such companies, I am sure that their principals would be only too pleased. The hon. Gentleman is a sportsman—

Mr. Stewart: And a friend.

Mr. Bruce: He is also a friend—in the real sense of that word—and will no doubt put me right later.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire): My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) began with what he described as a declaration of non-interest, but his remarks were clearly not a declaration of a lack of interest. It was a useful education for the House to spend a valuable hour or so listening to a former practising owner of an employment agency. I thank my hon. Friend for adding to my knowledge.
I have come across employment agencies in the past, but on the other side of the fence because I have used the temporary staff whom they sent me. The recruitment and staffing service industry is highly fragmented; I understand that the largest company has only about 15 per cent. of the market. Consequently, the industry is highly competitive and, as an employer, when I have looked for staff, either to work temporarily or to take on as a full-time employee, by shopping around, I have found the right people at the right price. Like my hon. Friend in his business, I developed a relationship with a series of different suppliers.
That demonstrates that restrictive practices do not exist in that industry and that price sensitivity is rather important. It also demonstrates that employers want the right person, and they are prepared to pay for that. The right person is not merely someone who can do the job, but someone who is happy to do the job. A temp who believes that she, or he, is being diddled by the temp agency is not a happy employee and will not do the job well.
The Government are making a mistake in trying to restrict the fees of agencies, and that is borne out by my experiences as an employer. I would never want to take on a badly paid temp, because he or she would not work well. I would not be interested in taking on a temp from a cowboy agency; I want people who have been properly vetted and can do the job that I ask them to do. I do not mind paying for that, or for the flexibility that it offers. If I decided that a person was so good that I wanted them to take full-time work, I would not mind paying the agency for having found that person for me.

Miss Kirkbride: As an employer with his own business, my hon. Friend has experience that we now hear less about in the House. For hon. Members who have not had that experience, will he elucidate the difficulties that he might find in recruiting the right person if he went out into the market rather than going through an employment agency? Did he find that using an agency was better? How difficult did he find it to try to attract the right people using his own resources?

Mr. Sayeed: I thank my hon. Friend for those pertinent questions. In the past, I have tried to save the 10 or 15 per cent. charged by employment agencies. That was a mistake, because I spent too much time trying to interview people and checking their skills, their qualifications, their


CVs and references. That was a waste of my time. Horses should stick to courses and, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset, my course was not choosing the right people to send to the right companies.
When I was running one company, it was so large that I set up an internal organisation to deal with recruiting, but I must admit that it was a bit of a failure and did not always attract the right people. One of the reasons is that, to attract the right people—especially in specialist areas—one has to broadcast one's message widely. I closed down that side of the business and went back to using professional recruiters. That is especially pertinent for the recruitment of specialist staff.
That brings me to my next point and to my problem with the Government's proposals. It is clear that the Government intend to penalise companies that restrict a temporary worker's ability to take a job directly with the hirer. Why do the Government want to do that? I should like to explain to them why it is a mistake from an employer's point of view. Often, temporary workers move, or are transferred, from one agency to another because it is simpler for the hiring company. Then, the employment agencies make arrangements between themselves about how to split fees. If one employs a large number of temps from different agencies, one often wants to consolidate them with one agency; it helps with the payroll and cuts down on administration. It is proper that, when a temp is transferred from one employment agency to another, the company losing the temp has a right to charge the company to which the temp is going. The Government appear to want to restrict that right. That is a mistake.
If we want employment agencies to be able to source, check and invigilate personnel so that companies can hire from them the best-qualified staff, the employment agencies must be rewarded for their work.

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend's experiences as an employer are most interesting. Does he agree that all Members of Parliament can join in this debate? It would be good to hear the views of Labour Members. Every Member of Parliament hires a secretary; many have more than one secretary and many have research assistants. Members often have to use the services of employment agencies when their staff are ill, on parental leave, or away for other reasons. Does my hon. Friend agree that the debate is relevant to all Members of Parliament, and that the experience of Labour Members might be useful in pointing out that the measure might be a step too far, because it would damage their capacity to find the temporary staff they need?

Mr. Sayeed: As I would expect, my right hon. Friend has made a most cogent point. However, we may well find that the researchers and secretaries of many Labour Members are hired by the trade union movement, which has supplied £100 million to the Labour party over the past few years. Labour Members might therefore be rather less interested than Conservative Members in the direct hiring of personnel.
The Bill will cause damage. The Government want to prevent employment agencies from benefiting from a temporary worker who becomes a permanent member

of staff, but it is important that an agency is able to benefit from a company taking on as a permanent member of staff someone it has been sent as a temporary member of staff. The reason is simple: unless an employer has to pay the employment agent for providing it with a person of such quality that it might want to take on that person as a permanent member of staff, the likelihood is either that the agent will send someone who is just about adequate, and that is all; or that the employer will use that as a way of recruiting full-time members of staff at a cut price. The consequence of that is that the employment agent's quality of selection will decline. Therefore, it is a mistake for the Government to pursue the notion of restricting an agent from benefiting from a temporary worker's ability to take a job directly with the hirer.
We all want high standards of both staff and employment agents. We do not want workers to be exploited, in either their conditions or their pay. We clearly want action to be taken against restrictive practices in the contract between the employer and the employee, or the hirer and the employment company. Given that, the contract should count as a clear agreement between two consenting parties. There is no coercion in the employment and recruitment industry—it is too fragmented for there to be coercion. Consequently, provided that the industry abides by good practice, it should be left to get on with its important and valuable work.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I, too, believe that the House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) for his detailed and knowledgeable speech. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), the experience that I bring to the debate does not nearly match that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset, but I speak as one who has used employment services. I am aware that I have not yet spoken on the Bill, but I have a specific interest in employment agencies and in a subset of that group. However, in Surrey, London and in the west country, I have had experience of using employment agencies and I can attest to their value in terms of finding people to work both in the workplace and in the home.
Until I listened to this debate, I had not realised that the incompetence displayed by Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry extended not only to the area that I am about to touch on, but across the board. It would appear that there is a total misconception about the point of temporary workers and the purpose to which agencies are put: both exist to oil the wheels of an enterprise economy, and they are not a threat to the regulated dirigiste economic system to which too many Labour Members still aspire.

Miss Kirkbride: My hon. Friend made me think of something. I suspect that Conservative Members do not have the figures, so it would be illuminating to hear the Government's figures on the number of full-time jobs found in the regular economy through employment agencies compared with the number found by the Employment Service, which is a nationalised state industry. I suspect that those figures will bear out the claim that the free market economy created by the employment agencies and their supporting ideology has been far more successful.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because we do know that the number of people finding jobs through employment agencies has trebled since 1992; we also know that, during that period, the Conservative Government deregulated the sector. No one can believe that those two facts are purely coincidental. After last year's announcements by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), when he was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, it became clear that the Government's policy was far from being one of modernisation. In fact, they are turning the clock back to 1973, whereas we modernised in 1996; that is what is happening through legislation such as the Bill before us today. As the chopping and changing goes on, with new amendments tabled on Report, we see that the Government have no clue what they should be doing, or why they are even beginning to do it.
I have a particular area of concern, and that is the employment of au pairs, a matter which I raised in the House a few weeks ago.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: If the hon. Gentleman's memory stretches back to the mid-1980s onward, he will recall that tenure of employment shifted from permanent to non-permanent or short-term employment. That is what gave rise to the growth of the agencies, because people who had lost their job through downsizing and so on were desperate to find anything to bridge the gap until they found something. That is the insecurity that was built into employment practices during that decade.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am sure that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we started to debate the changes in employment practice in the 1980s. However, we have a successful economy, which the Conservatives bequeathed to the current Government; it is capable of generating new jobs and, in the flexible workplace, many of those jobs will be temporary.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Opposition Members might care to learn that, during that decade, the number of temporary workers increased from 6 per cent. of the working population to 7 per cent. In France, where temporary employment is effectively illegal beyond three months, the number of people on temporary contracts is 25 per cent. of all employees. That demonstrates what happens when the Government try to overregulate the market.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In addition, the average time that people spent in a job barely decreased at all under the Conservative Governments, because temporary employment was, and still is, so often converted into full-time employment. The very provisions that threaten us today would jeopardise, not help, that process of conversion to full-time employment.

Miss Kirkbride: My hon. Friend's remarks are stirring great interest and we are extremely keen to hear of his experiences with au pairs. One of the reasons for the success of employment agencies and why they would be

damaged by the Bill is that, now that we have a more specialised labour market, the sort of measure that the Government are trying to introduce—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find that, when the hon. Lady intervenes, she tends to make a little speech. We cannot have little speeches during interventions.

Mr. St. Aubyn: In that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not be tempted down the path suggested by my hon. Friend.
I should preface my next remarks by saying that my wife and I have never employed an au pair. However, a great many au pairs are employed in my constituency, and representatives of several successful and long-standing agencies that create that employment came to see me some weeks ago when, on another occasion, the DTI got it completely wrong—so wrong that, on the same day as the Secretary of State announced that his minimum wage regulations would not apply to au pairs, one of my hon. Friends received a letter from the Home Office saying that au pairs would indeed be affected by the minimum wage legislation.

Mr. Boswell: Is it not because the Government were so arrogant in their assumptions in respect of the minimum wage legislation and so determined to confine the number of exceptions to the minimum that they have had the greatest legal difficulty in scrambling free from the chains that they have loaded on themselves and on an important sector of the economy?

Mr. St. Aubyn: My hon. Friend is right. The jury is out, and we cannot predict how the Government's masters in Brussels will interpret their wriggling on the hook of the regulations that they created. We have received several unsatisfactory letters from the Secretary of State and his colleagues trying to wriggle off that very hook. I am concerned that the regulations being rushed through the House may contain hidden legal traps that will come to light only when the officials in Brussels scrutinise the legislation and reinterpret it in the context of the many directives that the Government have signed.
I must touch briefly on the issue of au pairs. The previous Government, quite correctly, deregulated employment agencies. However, that action had some unintended consequences in the case of au pairs, and some agencies are not delivering the goods. I draw a real distinction between agencies that provide employment in the workplace and those that provide help in the home. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire made clear, adults can assess the quality of employees in the workplace. Companies will continue to use the services of an agency that delivers the goods and will rapidly cease to use those agencies that deliver second-rate employees. The market system will solve the problems.
When it comes to au pairs, the customer is the child in the home who is clearly in no position to assess the appropriateness or otherwise of the care provided. The logic of that argument extends to those who care for the elderly. Will the Secretary of State explain how he believes that the new regulations will affect au pair agencies? Will they continue to be exempt under the published regulations or will they come within the remit


of his Department? If they do, there may be an opportunity to improve the present situation slightly, but the Government will risk damaging the entire au pair scheme.
I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the comments of the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge). In responding to a recent Adjournment debate, she made it clear that she believed that au pairs who work for British families are taking advantage of one of life's big opportunities and must take their chances—I almost paraphrase her words. That approach could not contrast more starkly with the apparent attitude of the Department of Trade and Industry, which believes that employees must be mollycoddled from beginning to end by a Government who know exactly what is good for them. Regulations of the type that the Government propose will prove impossibly bureaucratic.
The Government might also consider the experience of the previous Government in promoting a helpline. In a deregulated system, a helpline is an efficient and cost-effective means by which those who have had bad experiences with employment agencies can alert the authorities and others to the risks that they pose. More practical assistance in the form of promoting that helpline would do more to improve the good-quality employment agencies in this country than the over-burdensome regulations with which we are threatened today. When the Government republished their advice to au pairs, they did not bother to include in their leaflet any information about the helpline that au pairs could call if they found their position unsuitable.
We must also consider that the Government might use the new regulations to force employment agencies to become second-class tax inspectors and tax collectors. A very good volunteer agency in my constituency works hard to find carers for the elderly, who would otherwise not be able to afford the service. That agency has experienced many difficulties because the local Inland Revenue office compels it to keep detailed records. The agency is required by law to provide information about the background details of all potential carers who pass through its doors.
Will the Minister assure the House that the remit of the regulations will not be too wide? We have heard that there might be an unfriendly knock on the door and that the regulations offer wide scope for inspecting business records. How can we be sure that, under the guise of these regulations, there will not be cross-fertilisation with the Inland Revenue and undue and unfair pressure applied to those who run the agencies to become tax inspectors and spies for a Government Department? If the Government are tempted down that road, many people will cease using employment agencies. They will relinquish the benefit of being properly assessed for work for which they are suited and the chance of discovering from employers where their best work prospects lie.

Mr. David Ruffley (Bury St. Edmunds): Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the arrogation of power to the Inland Revenue that has occurred under this

Government—particularly the way in which the Inland Revenue has assumed the operation of the working families tax credit?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing the regulations as they relate to the Employment Relations Bill. The Inland Revenue may be debated during consideration of the Finance Bill, but not during this debate.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I look forward to debating the Inland Revenue's new approach for many hours when my hon. Friend and I consider the Finance Bill.
I have no doubt that the Government will be tempted to misuse the regulations. They have succumbed to temptation before, and the drafting of the latest regulations gives one absolutely no confidence that pressure will not be applied. As a result, many of those who might have used employment services will follow other routes and a grey market in temporary employment will be created.

Miss Kirkbride: My hon. Friend's remarks are very worrying. Many of my constituents rely on the assistance of carers, who are provided by temporary employment agencies. It is very important that the industry is regulated properly. Such people provide a lifeline for the elderly, who are incapable of looking after themselves.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, and I hope that we will have the benefit of the views of those Labour Members who are deeply concerned about such matters. Unfortunately, not many of them have the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), but I hope that they will not be too timid to contribute to this vital discussion.
The proposals and draft regulations require more scrutiny than can be provided on Report. They demonstrate how out of touch and incompetent the Government are in the vital area of employment law.

7 pm

Mr. Byers: This has been an interesting debate. In the past few hours, we have discussed in detail the important role that employment agencies play in the current labour market. I shall seek to address the various concerns and questions that Opposition Members have raised.
I shall begin by addressing the concerns expressed by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). He asked specifically whether the new schedule would be in accordance with the European convention on human rights. I touched on that in my opening remarks, when I referred to the need to meet the requirements in relation to self-incrimination, which were set out in the decision in the case of Saunders v. the United Kingdom. We are confident that the new schedule complies with the convention, and I am pleased to give that assurance.

Mr. Boswell: While I am grateful for that substantive assurance, I also asked the Secretary of State a procedural question about whether a Minister who tables a new schedule automatically considers whether it complies with the convention, whether that compliance is assumed or


whether, in this particular case, the right hon. Gentleman has studied the new schedule's compliance and he gives that assurance on a one-off basis.

Mr. Byers: When a Bill is presented to the House, the responsible Minister has to sign a statement to the effect that the measure complies with the European convention on human rights. It follows that any amendments or new schedules that are tabled by the Government will also comply with that convention, or they would not be tabled. I am certainly happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that this new schedule complies with the convention.
The hon. Gentleman also expressed concerns about the powers of inspectors relating to entry into premises, including the time of day at which such entry could take place. We heard about the knock in the middle of the night which might not be a friendly knock and the difficulties that individuals could be placed in if they were requested to provide information but lacked the necessary knowledge to do so.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that under the existing section 9 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973, there is a limit on the hours during which inspectors may visit. Those are restricted, in classic legal jargon, to "all reasonable hours". That is the sort of phrase which allows lawyers to make lots of money. Under the proposals before the House, those words would remain in the section. It is appropriate that there is a discretion to determine what is reasonable in the particular circumstances being considered by the court at the time. The existing precedents have established that a reasonable time is during a business's normal trading hours, and we continue to take that view. We can go further and say that in these situations it should be normal practice for inspectors from my Department to visit by appointment. That is good practice, and I intend to give that advice to inspectors on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry.
The hon. Gentleman also raised a point about whether forcible entry could be made, with damages arising as a result. I am informed that forcible entry is not allowed in the provisions that the House is considering. I hope that those clarifications are helpful to Conservative Members. We try our best.

Mr. Boswell: It is right that we should record our thanks where appropriate, so I say to the Secretary of State that we are very satisfied with the assurances that he has given so far. If he continues in that vein, it may affect the tenor of subsequent events.

Mr. Byers: I am conscious that if I go too far in that vein, I may well be the third Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to depart from office during this Parliament, so I shall move on quickly and try to find a point on which I can disagree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Byers: Before I resign or afterwards?

Mr. Bruce: The right hon. Gentleman will note that his two Labour predecessors were not as accommodating as he is, so perhaps he is ensuring his longevity in the job.

However, I suspect that if he gets the legislation wrong for the people from employment agencies who are out in Parliament square, that may truncate his career.

Mr. Byers: We shall try to do our best for employment agencies as we do for other organisations, bearing it in mind that our Government were elected to act for all our people and not just a privileged few, unlike Conservative Members. Those words should help to extend my tenure.
The hon. Member for Daventry also expressed concern about a delay in the time in which someone could be prosecuted. The reason for that delay is that there will be circumstances in which individual workers may have to wait a considerable time before they feel able to complain, for example, about non-payment of wages. When a complaint is made in those circumstances, it is appropriate that a prosecution can be made.
The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) made an extremely informative contribution, which I am sure was welcomed by most, or at least some, hon. Members. He took us through his experiences in the employment agency service, which was beneficial. I accept his point about an impact assessment for regulations that might be introduced. There was no impact assessment for the regulations that were produced last week because those were in draft form. When the definitive version is produced, an impact assessment will be published along with the regulations.
On pay rates and notice of changes, I want to ensure that the regulations are as practical as possible for agencies. The present regulations contain no requirement to notify workers of their rate of pay, and we receive many complaints about that. That notification is good practice and is given by many agencies. There are contracts that include such notification, but there is no regulation to require that to happen. It is appropriate to ensure that that aspect is covered by regulation. Obviously, the regulation will build on the good practice to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Bruce: I certainly stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that one has to send a contract of employment to an individual. If that contract did not include the rate of pay among its conditions of employment, it would be invalid under employment contract legislation.

Mr. Byers: That legislation would require a written contract of employment to be provided, but the hon. Gentleman's point was that a telephone call could reveal that a job was available and that it was important, at that stage, that people knew the rate of pay at which they were being hired. That is the issue which we seek to deal with in regulations.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about temporary to permanent fees. I make it clear that we do not propose to prohibit the charging of those fees, but there is a need to control the circumstances in which they can be charged. The use of temp to perm clauses without any restriction can have serious consequences for individual workers and stand in the way of a free and flexible labour market. I shall explain why that is the case.
There is broad agreement that it would be wrong to allow the imposition on workers of terms that restrict them from taking up employment. Placing financial


penalties on hirers who wish directly to employ workers whom they originally obtained through an agency has a similar effect to imposing direct restrictions on employees themselves because fees can be set so high that employers are deterred from hiring any workers who have been supplied by a particular employment agency. We seek to overcome that difficulty.

Mr. Sayeed: Can the Secretary of State give us any examples of that? I am not aware of any employment agency that has ever so end-loaded a contract with a fee as to try to force a person whom they are contracting out to another company to remain in temporary employment rather than going on to full-time labour.

Mr. Byers: Such an example was given in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope). He reported the case of a worker who formerly worked for a transport agency and was offered a better paid job by a distribution company. The transport agency through which he had previously worked had included in his contract an "introduction fee" of £2,500, many times the cost of recruiting a worker in that sector. As a result, that worker was unable to take up that particular post. That is an example of the difficulties that can be caused and which we are seeking to overcome.

Mr. Ian Bruce: We are getting to the nub of the issue. A penalty clause—one that makes it more expensive to recruit someone via a temp to perm arrangement—might well require some regulations. I do not think that the industry would be unhappy with that, but surely the Minister is saying that all such temp to perm fees would be outlawed. I have already said why that would mean that a temp could be taken on just for a week and then be followed by another temp. If someone is recruited under a temp to perm arrangement, I think that the industry wants a fee to be paid, as though that person had gone directly from the employment agency into a permanent job.

Mr. Byers: I said at the beginning that there would be no prohibition on the use of temp to perm clauses, but we are seeking to remove the potential for abuse of that system, whereby individuals can effectively have a price placed on their head and, as a result, find it very difficult to enter employment. That is the point I am seeking to clarify.

Miss Kirkbride: If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he will allow temporary to permanent fees, will he say how he will judge what is an appropriate fee? Will it be based on a percentage of salary? What guidance can he give as to the level of fee that he would find acceptable?

Mr. Byers: These are issues on which I am prepared to take advice and to consult the industry. The level will need to be reasonable in the circumstances. That is the approach we intend to take. We want to prevent individuals from being exploited and denied employment opportunities. There is common cause among the parties that that is the mischief which we must address.

Mr. David Chidgey: While the Secretary of State is undertaking his investigation and consultation,

will he take note of an issue that has come to my attention and which affects the teaching profession? Apparently there is increased casualisation of the teaching profession—[Interruption.] I hope that he is able to take on board what I am saying, although he is clearly being distracted.
There is increasing evidence of growing casualisation in the teaching profession. More and more teachers are finding that they cannot get permanent contracts, only supply work. That in itself is not too much of a problem, but difficulties arise because an increasing number of schools, instead of operating their own lists of supply teachers, are going to employment agencies which are able at short notice to fulfil—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is speaking about a highly technical matter, but the House's rules are clear: interventions must be brief. The hon. Gentleman has been as brief as I can allow him.

Mr. Byers: In that brief intervention, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) made his point. All I can say is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has some radical measures that will make teaching a much more attractive profession, which may help some of the individuals to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.
I hope that I have made the Government's intentions clear in respect of temp to perm fees.
The hon. Member for South Dorset raised a number of issues around the regulations, and we shall consider them as part of the consultation process. They were not really questions for me so much as general matters relating to the subject. His points were well made, and we shall consider his comments in the consultation exercise.
In speaking to amendment No. 34, the hon. Member for Daventry encouraged me to endorse the affirmative procedure for the regulations. I set great store by the regulations, and there is merit in ensuring that they are open to effective scrutiny. Clearly, if things remain as they are, there will be an opportunity for Opposition Members to pray against them, and we may well have a debate in the House or in Committee. If the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, such a debate will be guaranteed.
I cannot agree to amendment No. 34 this evening, but there is significant merit in the suggested approach. I should like to consider that approach; perhaps we shall be able to respond more positively in another place. I hope that I have been able to address Opposition Members' concerns on this very important matter.
7.15 pm
There is no prejudice against employment agencies on the part of the Government. We believe that they have an important role to play in a flexible and prosperous labour market. Very often, they deal with people who, for private reasons, choose to be temporary and do not wish to take permanent contracts. Employment agencies are a growth sector, one which we want to ensure can properly address the challenges that lie ahead in the next century.


For those reasons, I invite the House to support Government amendment No. 59 and new schedule 2, but to resist the Opposition amendments.

Mr. Redwood: I am aware that we have had a longish debate, but I should like to make a few brief points in reply to the Secretary of State and in order to give guidance to Opposition Members in the light of his comments.
I found the Secretary of State's set of replies by far the best that I have ever heard him give. I am grateful to him for going some way to meet the concerns of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I thought that his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) was particularly good. We are reassured about the hours of visits and by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has checked with lawyers about the European convention on human rights—we do not want the taxpayers or the Government to be faced with an expensive court case. We are also reassured that no forcible entry is allowed under the regulations.
We accept the right hon. Gentleman's reassurances in the spirit in which they were intended. They show that the Report stage can be valuable in clarifying such matters, as we gave the Secretary of State the opportunity to put his assurances on record. Many people in the affected industry will be interested to read his remarks, and I am sure that they will be greatly heartened by them.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), however, I fear that we did not get quite as much as we would have liked, as I am sure the Secretary of State will understand. My biggest worry about the late arrival of the new schedule and the associated changes is the absence of a proper cost assessment.
I quite understand why the Secretary of State is in a difficult position. He saw that the original proposals were not going to work very well, and understandably wished to amend them. Because of the pressure of time on the business of the House, he has not had enough time to go through everything properly and come to the House with an impact assessment of the costs. That is of course a pity because it follows the recent famous statement by the Minister for the Cabinet Office—made not so many hours ago—to the effect that one of the most important things for the Government was to ensure that any new regulation would be accompanied by a proper assessment of the costs for those affected. We now have one of the first examples of new regulations with no impact cost assessment.
I am worried about the possible costs. I understand that the proposals are well intentioned and that the Secretary of State considered their length in terms of the number of words and pages in an attempt to make them a little more user-friendly, to use the management jargon beloved of this Government. However, I would find it much more reassuring if we had a proper cost assessment from the Government so that we could see how much each employment agency is likely to face by way of additional compliance costs. We could then work out the impact on their charging policies and on the number of people they could afford to employ themselves. There is a worry that the cost could get out of control.
Previous Government exercises have revealed that the Government often understate the compliance costs, sometimes quite dramatically. We certainly felt that to be

the case with the competition legislation. Indeed, we now learn from businesses around the country that it is proving much dearer to take the right advice from lawyers in preparation for the new regime than the House was originally told at the time.
The Bill is still quite complicated and we need to be cautious about the costs that it might entail. That is my worry. I am glad that the Secretary of State made it clear that he does not wish to prohibit the charging of fees where there is a move from temporary to permanent employment. We would hope that the idea that someone obtains a temporary job and that that leads to permanent employment could be actively promoted.
That movement often occurs even though the temporary staff member has been found through an employment agency. Many employment agencies would regard that as a success. However, understandably, they wish to protect their business interests to a realistic degree. That being so, the Secretary of State's clarification that there is no prohibition on the charging of fees was most welcome.
As the Secretary of State has said, there may need to be some control over the abuse of clauses limiting or controlling the movement from temporary to permanent employment. I concede, as do my hon. Friends who know the employment agency industry better than I, that there could be such cases.
It is clear that these matters are confusing when even my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset and others who are well versed in them were not clear about the Government's intention from the amendment paper and the draft schedule. I ask the Secretary of State, with his draftsmen and lawyers, to reconsider the language of their proposals. It is not clear to us from the draft legislation before us that the right hon. Gentleman will achieve his quite sensible objective.
We should also like a little more information, when the Bill returns to this place, on how abuses can be controlled. We would want to ensure that abuses were narrowly defined so that a new burden was not placed on those carrying out these activities.
The Secretary of State made the sensible comment that he wants fewer restrictions because he would like to see a more flexible market. If we introduce the crude instrument of the law into a series of detailed and often different negotiations and contracts between individuals and firms, we shall end up with a worse answer rather than a better one.
When we have had time to study the schedule at greater length, I suspect that we will find that it is not loophole proof. The Secretary of State and his advisers may well find, following further consultation, that it is necessary to introduce additional amendments. He may find that it is possible to find a way round the provisions, which he has put forward in something of a hurry. To me, that implies that we need effective scrutiny of the regulations that will follow. We have only the bare bones before us tonight, even though there is quite a lengthy schedule and a series of amendments. We know that a series of regulations have to follow.
The Secretary of State did not give us a firm guarantee that we would definitely have a decent debate on the ensuing regulations, which we think is the minimum required given that what is before us came very late, did not go through the normal Committee process and may contain drafting problems. For that reason and others, we


cannot simply accept the Secretary of State's amendments. Similarly, we cannot leave our amendments, which were meant well, to try to improve this draft legislation, without pressing them to a vote.

Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to trouble my right hon. Friend, but what he says about the absence of a commitment to a debate on the Floor of the House is of the utmost importance. That debate must be prior to the implementation of the regulations. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the consultation period for the regulations should be no less than three months, and that the private sector should have three months' notice of the date of implementation, in contradistinction to the period that was provided for the working time regulations, which understandably caused a great furore?

Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend has made a helpful point. It might be one that Ministers will be sympathetic towards. I am sure that the Secretary of State did not welcome arriving in the Department to discover that a mass of labour market and other regulations had been rushed through without proper consultation and that many problems had emerged as a result. I pay tribute to him again. There have been occasions when he has tried to sort out problems that he inherited from his predecessor. I think immediately of the au pair mess. We read in the newspaper that the right hon. Gentleman was extremely angry about what had happened. However, it is the Secretary of State's job to stay on top of all that and have the appropriate dialogue with his officials to ensure that the process of regulation and government runs as smoothly as possible.
The right hon. Gentleman may find that the latest proposals that are before us are still not the answer, as my hon. Friends have illustrated. It would greatly help him to agree at this stage—I shall willingly give way if he wishes to intervene—to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). My hon. Friend is suggesting that three months' consultation would be a very good idea and that we need proper time to scrutinise the Government's proposals to ensure that they are right. Better to have regulations in six months' time that are right, all the issues having been thought through, than to have botched regulations in three months' time, which would entail the House having to undertake its work again when the Government finally admitted that they had got them wrong.
Given the Secretary of State's new-found love tonight for a sensible parliamentary dialogue and process, and given the co-operation of both sides of the House on some elements of these proposals, I would think it only reasonable for me to ask for, and perhaps for him to accept, a longer consultation period and then a proper debate on the Floor of the House about any regulations. That would complete the job in the way to which we are accustomed, or would like to be accustomed, and in the way that would be best able to secure a sensible future for employment agencies.
I was heartened that the Secretary of State had honeyed words for employment agencies. That has not always been true of members of the right hon. Gentleman's party. However, now that the Government are using these agencies along with Members on both sides of the House

and many people in the private sector, it makes sense for the Government and the Opposition to unite in saying that the agencies have a valuable role to play in our economy. They may need a modicum of sensible regulation to stop abuse but we need to be careful about over-regulating them.
We need to be careful about changing regulations in case words go adrift or because lawyers are cleverer than legislators, because there are too many loopholes or in case there are crudities in the approach to introducing law that would result in rich lawyers but limitations on the flexible labour market that the Secretary of State says he would like, which I would definitely like and which I have, in the past, tried to help on its way as a legislator on the Government Benches.
The Opposition welcome the concessions so far, think that we need a few more, would have liked the guarantee of a proper debate and would have liked a guarantee of a sensible period for reflection and consultation with the industry. As we have not yet received those promises from the Secretary of State, I would urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against Government amendment No. 59 to show that we would have liked additional matters to be cleared up.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 127.

Division No. 138]
[7.27 pm


AYES


Ainger, Nick
Canavan, Dennis


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cann, Jamie


Allan, Richard
Caplin, Ivor


Allen, Graham
Caton, Martin


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Chidgey, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Clapham, Michael


Austin, John
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Banks, Tony
Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Barnes, Harry



Barron, Kevin
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Beard, Nigel
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Begg, Miss Anne
Clelland, David


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clwyd, Ann


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Coaker, Vernon


Benton, Joe
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bermingham, Gerald
Cohen, Harry


Berry, Roger
Coleman, Iain


Best, Harold
Colman, Tony


Betts, Clive
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Blackman, Liz
Cooper, Yvette


Blears, Ms Hazel
Corbett, Robin


Blizzard, Bob
Cotter, Brian


Boateng, Paul
Cousins, Jim


Borrow, David
Cox, Tom


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Crausby, David


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Buck, Ms Karen
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Burden, Richard
Dalyell, Tam


Burgon, Colin
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Butler, Mrs Christine
Darvill, Keith


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies(NE Fife)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)



Dawson, Hilton


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Denham, John






Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Doran, Frank
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Drown, Ms Julia
Keeble, Ms Sally


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Edwards, Huw
Kemp, Fraser


Efford, Clive
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Ennis, Jeff
Khabra, Piara S


Etherington, Bill
Kidney, David


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fearn, Ronnie
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fisher, Mark
Kingham, Ms Tess


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Flint, Caroline
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Flynn, Paul
Laxton, Bob


Follett, Barbara
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Linton, Martin


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Livingstone, Ken


Foulkes, George
Livsey, Richard


Fyfe, Maria
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gapes, Mike
Lock, David


Gardiner, Barry
Love, Andrew


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McAllion, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
McAvoy, Thomas


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McCabe, Steve


Godman, Dr Norman A
McDonagh, Siobhain


Godsiff, Roger
McDonnell, John


Goggins, Paul
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Golding, Mrs Llin
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Grocott, Bruce
McNulty, Tony


Grogan, John
MacShane, Denis


Hain, Peter
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McWalter, Tony


Hanson, David
McWilliam, John


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Harvey, Nick
Mallaber, Judy


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Healey, John
Marek, Dr John


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hepburn, Stephen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Heppell, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hesford, Stephen
Martlew, Eric


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Maxton, John


Hill, Keith
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hinchliffe, David
Merron, Gillian


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hoey, Kate
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hood, Jimmy
Miller, Andrew


Hoon, Geoffrey
Mitchell, Austin


Hope, Phil
Moffatt, Laura


Hopkins, Kelvin
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morley, Elliot


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hurst, Alan
Mountford, Kali


Hutton, John
Mullin, Chris


Iddon, Dr Brian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Norris, Dan


Jamieson, David
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jenkins, Brian
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
O'Hara, Eddie


Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)
Olner, Bill



Öpik, Lembit


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)
Palmer, Dr Nick



Pearson, Ian


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pendry, Tom





Perham, Ms Linda
Steinberg, Gerry


Pickthall, Colin
Stevenson, George


Pike, Peter L
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Plaskitt, James
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pollard, Kerry
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pope, Greg
Stoate, Dr Howard


Powell, Sir Raymond
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stringer, Graham


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Stunell, Andrew


Primarolo, Dawn
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prosser, Gwyn 
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)


Purchase, Ken



Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Temple-Morris, Peter


Quinn Lawrie 
Tipping, Paddy


Rapson, Syd
Todd, Mark


Raynsford, Nick
Trickett, Jon


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Truswell, Paul


Roche Mrs Barbara
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rooker, Jeff 
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rooney Terry
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Roy Frank
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ruane, Chris
Vaz, Keith


Ruddock, Joan
Vis, Dr Rudi


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Walley, Ms Joan


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Ward, Ms Claire



Wareing, Robert N


Salter, Martin
Watts, David


Sanders, Adrian
Welsh, Andrew


Sarwar, Mohammad
White, Brian


Savidge, Malcolm
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sawford, Phil
Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)


Sedgemore, Brian



Shaw, Jonathan
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sheerman, Barry
Wills, Michael


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Winnick, David


Shipley, Ms Debra
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wise, Audrey


Singh, Marsha
Woolas, Phil


Skinner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wray, James


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. Jim Dowd and Mr. Mike Hall.


Squire, Ms Rachel





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Curry, Rt Hon David


Amess, David
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)


Baldry, Tony



Beggs, Roy
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Bercow, John
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Blunt, Crispin
Duncan, Alan


Boswell, Tim
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Evans, Nigel


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Faber, David


Brady, Graham
Fabricant, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Fallon, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Flight, Howard


Browning, Mrs Angela
Forsythe, Clifford


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Butterfill, John
Garnier, Edward


Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)
Gibb, Nick



Gill, Christopher


Chope, Christopher
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clappison, James
Gray, James


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Green, Damian


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Greenway, John


Colvin, Michael
Grieve, Dominic


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Cran, James
Hammond, Philip






Hayes, John
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Heald, Oliver
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Horam, John
Ruffley, David


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
St Aubyn, Nick


Hunter, Andrew
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Jenkin, Bernard
Soames, Nicholas


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Spicer, Sir Michael



Spring, Richard


Key, Robert
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Streeter, Gary


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Swayne, Desmond


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Syms, Robert


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lansley, Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Letwin, Oliver
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lidington, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Townend, John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tredinnick, David


Loughton, Tim
Trend, Michael


Luff, Peter
Tyrie, Andrew


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Viggers, Peter


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Walter, Robert


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Wardle, Charles


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wells, Bowen


Malins, Humfrey
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Maples, John
Whittingdale, John


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Willetts, David


May, Mrs Theresa
Wilshire, David


Moss, Malcolm
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Nicholls, Patrick
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Norman, Archie
Woodward, Shaun


Ottaway, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Page, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Paice, James



Pickles, Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Prior, David
Mrs. Caroline Spelman and Mr. Tim Collins.


Randall, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day — New Schedule 1

BALLOTS AND NOTICES

Introduction

1. The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 shall be amended as provided by this Schedule.

Support of ballot

2.—(l) Section 226 (requirement of ballot before action by trade union) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2) (industrial action to be regarded as having support of ballot only if certain conditions are fulfilled) in paragraph (a)(ii) for "231A" substitute "231", omit the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b), and after paragraph (b) insert—

"(bb) section 232A does not prevent the industrial action from being regarded as having the support of the ballot; and".

(3) After subsection (3) insert—

"(3A) If the requirements of section 231A fall to be satisfied in relation to an employer, as respects that employer industrial action shall not be regarded as having the support of a ballot unless those requirements are satisfied in relation to that employer."

Documents for employers

3.—(1) Section 226A (notice of ballot and sample voting paper for employers) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2)(c) (notice of ballot must describe employees entitled to vote) for "describing (so that he can readily ascertain them) the employees of the employer" substitute "containing such information in the union's possession as would help the employer to make plans and bring information to the attention of those of his employees".

(3) After subsection (3) insert—

"(3A) These rules apply for the purposes of paragraph (c) of subsection (2)—

(a) if the union possesses information as to the number, category or work-place of the employees concerned, a notice must contain that information (at least);
(b) if a notice does not name any employees, that fact shall not be a ground for holding that it does not comply with paragraph (c) of subsection (2).

(3B) In subsection (3) references to employees are to employees of the employer concerned."

Entitlement to vote

4. In section 227 (entitlement to vote in ballot) subsection (2) (position where member is denied entitlement to vote) shall be omitted.

Voting paper

5.—(1) Section 229 (voting paper) shall be amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2) (voting paper must ask whether voter is prepared to take part in a strike or industrial action short of a strike) insert—

"(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) an overtime ban and a call-out ban constitute industrial action short of a strike."

(3) At the end of the statement in subsection (4) (statement that industrial action may be a breach of employment contract to be set out on every voting paper) insert—

"However, if you are dismissed for taking part in strike or other industrial action which is called officially and is otherwise lawful, the dismissal will be unfair if it takes place fewer than eight weeks after you started taking part in the action, and may be unfair if it takes place later."

Inducement

6. After section 232 insert—

Inducement of member denied entitlement to vote

232A. Industrial action shall not be regarded as having the support of a ballot if the following conditions apply in the case of any person—

(a) he was a member of the trade union at the time when the ballot was held,
(b) it was reasonable at that time for the trade union to believe he would be induced to take part or, as the case may be, to continue to take part in the industrial action,
(c) he was not accorded entitlement to vote in the ballot, and
(d) he was induced by the trade union to take part or, as the case may be, to continue to take part in the industrial action."

Disregard of certain failures

7. After section 232A there shall be inserted—

Small accidental failures to he disregarded

232B.—(1) If—

(a) in relation to a ballot there is a failure (or there are failures) to comply with a provision mentioned in subsection (2) or with more than one of those provisions, and
(b) the failure is accidental and on a scale which is unlikely to affect the result of the ballot or, as the case may be, the failures are accidental and taken together are on a scale which is unlikely to affect the result of the ballot,


the failure (or failures) shall be disregarded.

(2) The provisions are section 227(1), section 230(2) and section 230(2A)."

Period of ballot's effectiveness

8. In section 234 (period after which ballot ceases to be effective) for subsection (1) there shall be substituted—

"(1) Subject to the following provisions, a ballot ceases to be effective for the purposes of section 233(3)(b) in relation to industrial action by members of a trade union at the end of the period, beginning with the date of the ballot—

(a) of four weeks, or
(b) of such longer duration not exceeding eight weeks as is agreed between the union and the members' employer."

Notice of industrial action

9.—(1) Section 234A (notice to employers of industrial action) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3)(a) (notice relating to industrial action must describe employees intended to take part in industrial action) for "describes (so that he can readily ascertain them) the employees of the employer who" substitute "contains such information in the union's possession as would help the employer to make plans and bring information to the attention of those of his employees whom".

(3) After subsection (5) insert—

"(5A) These rules apply for the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (3)—
(a) if the union possesses information as to the number, category or work-place of the employees concerned, a notice must contain that information (at least);
(b) if a notice does not name any employees, that fact shall not be a ground for holding that it does not comply with paragraph (a) of subsection (3)."

(4) In subsection (7)—

(a) insert at the beginning the words "Subject to subsections (7A) and (7B),", and
(b) in paragraph (a) the words "otherwise than to enable the union to comply with a court order or an undertaking given to a court" shall cease to have effect.

(5) After subsection (7) insert—

"(7A) Subsection (7) shall not apply where industrial action ceases to be authorised or endorsed in order to enable the union to comply with a court order or an undertaking given to a court.

(7B) Subsection (7) shall not apply where—

(a) a union agrees with an employer, before industrial action ceases to be authorised or endorsed, that it will cease to be authorised or endorsed with effect from a date specified in the agreement ("the suspension date") and that it may again be authorised or endorsed with effect from a date not earlier than a date specified in the agreement ("the resumption date"),
(b) the action ceases to be authorised or endorsed with effect from the suspension date, and
(c) the action is again authorised or endorsed with effect from a date which is not earlier than the resumption date or such later date as may be agreed between the union and the employer."

(6) In subsection (9) for "subsection (7)" substitute "subsections (7) to (7B)".'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 2

SCHEDULE

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

Introduction

1. The Employment Agencies Act 1973 shall be amended as provided in this Schedule.

General regulations

2.—(1) Section 5 (power to make general regulations) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) there shall be substituted for paragraphs (f) and (g) and the proviso following paragraph (g)—
"(ea) restricting the services which may be provided by persons carrying on such agencies and businesses;
(eb) regulating the way in which and the terms on which services may be provided by persons carrying on such agencies and businesses;
(ec) restricting or regulating the charging of fees by persons carrying on such agencies and businesses."

(3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—

"(1A) The reference in subsection (1)(eb) of this section to services includes a reference to services in respect of—

(a) persons seeking employment outside the United Kingdom;
(b) persons normally resident outside the United Kingdom seeking employment in the United Kingdom."

Charges

3. For section 6(1) (restriction on demand or receipt of fee for finding or seeking to find employment) there shall be substituted—

"(1) Except in such cases or classes of case as the Secretary of State may prescribe—

(a) a person carrying on an employment agency shall not request or directly or indirectly receive any fee from any person for providing services (whether by the provision of information or otherwise) for the purpose of finding him employment or seeking to find him employment;
(b) a person carrying on an employment business shall not request or directly or indirectly receive any fee from an employee for providing services (whether by the provision of information or otherwise) for the purpose of finding or seeking to find another person, with a view to the employee acting for and under the control of that other person;
(c) a person carrying on an employment business shall not request or directly or indirectly receive any fee from a second person for providing services (whether by the provision of information or otherwise) for the purpose of finding or seeking to find a third person, with a view to the second person becoming employed by the first person and acting for and under the control of the third person."

Inspection

4.—(1) Section 9 (inspection) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) (power to inspect)—

(a) for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—
"(a) enter any relevant business premises;", and
(b) after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted—
";and
(d) take copies of records and other documents inspected under paragraph (b).".

(3) After subsection (1) there shall be inserted—

"(1A) If an officer seeks to inspect or acquire, in accordance with subsection (1)(b) or (c), a record or other document or information which is not kept at the premises being inspected, he may require any person on the premises—

(a) to inform him where and by whom the record, other document or information is kept, and
(b) to make arrangements, if it is reasonably practicable for the person to do so, for the record, other document or information to be inspected by or furnished to the officer at the premises at a time specified by the officer.
(1B) In subsection (1) "relevant business premises" means premises—

(a) which are used, have been used or are to be used for or in connection with the carrying on of an employment agency or employment business,
(b) which the officer has reasonable cause to believe are used or have been used for or in connection with the carrying on of an employment agency or employment business, or
(c) which the officer has reasonable cause to believe are used for the carrying on of a business by a person who also carries on or has carried on an employment agency or employment business, if the officer also has reasonable cause to believe that records or other documents which relate to the employment agency or employment business are kept there.
(1C) For the purposes of subsection (1)—

(a) "document" includes information recorded in any form, and
(b) information is kept at premises if it is accessible from them."

(4) For subsection (2) (self-incrimination) there shall be substituted—

"(2) Nothing in this section shall require a person to produce, provide access to or make arrangements for the production of anything which he could not be compelled to produce in civil proceedings before the High Court or (in Scotland) the Court of Session.
(2A) Subject to subsection (2B), a statement made by a person in compliance with a requirement under this section may be used in evidence against him in criminal proceedings.
(2B) Except in proceedings for an offence under section 5 of the Perjury Act 1911 (false statements made otherwise than on oath), no evidence relating to the statement may be adduced, and no question relating to it may be asked, by or on behalf of the prosecution unless—

(a) evidence relating to it is adduced, or
(b) a question relating to it is asked,
by or on behalf of the person who made the statement."

(5) In subsection (3) (offence)—

(a) for "or (b)" there shall be substituted ", (b) or (d)", and
(b) after the words "paragraph (c) of that subsection" there shall be inserted "or under subsection (1A)".

(6) In subsection (4)(a) (restriction on disclosure of information) in sub-paragraph (iv) (exception for criminal proceedings pursuant to or arising out of the Act) the words "pursuant to or arising out of this Act" shall be omitted.

Offences

5. After section 11 there shall be inserted—

Offences: extension of time limit

11 A.—(1) For the purposes of subsection (2) of this section a relevant offence is an offence under section 3B, 5(2), 6(2), 9(4)(b) or 10(2) of this Act for which proceedings are instituted by the Secretary of State.

(2) Notwithstanding section 127(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (information to be laid within 6 months of offence) an information relating to a relevant offence which is triable by a magistrates' court in England and Wales may be so tried if it is laid at any time—

(a) within 3 years after the date of the commission of the offence, and
(b) within 6 months after the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the Secretary of State to justify the proceedings came to his knowledge.

(3) Notwithstanding section 136 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (time limit for prosecuting certain statutory offences) in Scotland proceedings in respect of an offence under section 3B, 5(2), 6(2), 9(4)(b) or 10(2) of this Act may be commenced at any time—

(a) within 3 years after the date of the commission of the offence, and
(b) within 6 months after the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the Lord Advocate to justify the proceedings came to his knowledge.

(4) For the purposes of this section a certificate of the Secretary of State or Lord Advocate (as the case may be) as to the date on which evidence came to his knowledge is conclusive evidence.

Offences: cost of investigation

11B. The court in which a person is convicted of an offence under this Act may order him to pay to the Secretary of State a sum which appears to the court not to exceed the costs of the investigation which resulted in the conviction."

Interpretation

6. In section 13(2) (definition of employment agency) for "workers" (in each place) there shall be substituted "persons".'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: RECOGNITION

Mr. Graham Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 19, line 25, leave out from second 'to' to end of line 26 and insert
'the matters listed in section 178(2)(a).'.
I am pleased that the amendment has been selected, as it is an important example of the Report stage doing exactly as it should; ensuring that there is proper scrutiny of the amendments made in Committee. A cursory glance at the report of the Committee proceedings of 16 March would demonstrate how quickly the Government amendments relating to this part of the Bill were made, with relatively little debate. I must admit that that was an occasion when I was not present in Committee, for which I apologise.
It is important that we focus on this critical aspect of the Bill, which defines those aspects of employment relationships that ought to be considered to be a part of the Bill's collective bargaining proposals.
The amendment relates to section 178 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Act refers to the terms and conditions of employment, or the physical conditions in which any workers are required to work. The objective is to specify the precise dimensions of the issues that are appropriate to the collective bargaining proposals.
That is complicated by the Government amendments made in Committee. In Committee, the Minister said:
The amendments ensure that the Bill achieves the policy set out in the White Paper. We tabled them because we realised that the original wording went wider than originally intended. The union and the employer are free to include other matters in the collective bargaining agreement—that is a deliberate feature of the legislation, to encourage voluntary agreements by giving the parties room for manoeuvre."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 16 March 1999; c. 359.]
I welcome the Government's actions in defining those aspects of the Bill more tightly.

Mr. Fabricant: I am a little puzzled. What is voluntary about the scheme if, under the Bill, just 40 per cent. of those actually voting can force collective bargaining on both employees and management?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the amendment before us, which is narrow.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I suspect that my hon. Friend may have some opportunity to go down that route in looking at later amendments that are relevant to automatic recognition, which may leave him slightly less baffled than he is at the moment—at least if the Government have the wisdom to accept those later amendments.
The Government's original intention, as set out in the White Paper, "Fairness at Work", was for collective bargaining procedures to cover pay, hours and holidays as a minimum. The White Paper went on:
There are conflicting views on whether training should also be included. The Government would welcome responses on this point. The parties may add other items if they wish.
That is all very fine, but the Bill, as amended, raises a number of significant questions.
As it stands, the Bill specifies that negotiations relating to pay, hours and holidays should be those that are included in collective bargaining arrangements, but new subsection (6) states that the effect of that will be subject to sub-paragraph (7), which says that wider matters can be included by the parties subject to their agreement, but that in turn is complicated by the exception provided in paragraph 27(3).

Mr. Eric Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend will explain the effect of the removal of the reference to subparagraph (7). Is he satisfied that the connection between subparagraphs (6) and (7) will be as strong? I fear that the amendment may destroy the effect of sub-paragraph (7).

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that specific aspect of amendment No. 46. [Interruption.] He is indeed a fine example of the products of the Scottish education system, and does it great credit. I am sure that that is what the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) was trying to suggest from a sedentary position.
Sub-paragraph (7) expressly gives the parties the right to vary agreements. Surely the specification of such terms in legislation is unnecessary, given the voluntary tradition of labour relations in this country. What are the Government driving at? By implication, does not the Bill in its present form perversely suggest to those who may

come into contact with it in the courts that any elements that do not carry a specific endorsement of the right to engage in wider issues on a voluntary basis constitute a presumption against it?
It is being considered appropriate to say that it is possible for the parties to engage in wider voluntary agreements, but that specific power is not conferred in other parts of the Bill. It could be said that the implication is that there is no power or freedom for the parties to engage in free bargaining in whatever manner they choose. I hope that the Minister will deal with that, and, in particular, with the exemption relating to paragraph 27(3), which is consequential on the amendment.
The fact that paragraph 27(3) does not apply to voluntary arrangements raises further questions. What scope will the Central Arbitration Committee ordinarily have, under other parts of the schedule, to dictate the conduct of collective bargaining?

Mr. Bercow: In the light of those last remarks, I wonder whether my hon. Friend is encouraged by paragraph 140 of new section 81. Page 35 of the explanatory notes refers to the scope for "collective or workforce agreements". Some adumbration of the significance of that from the Secretary of State would be extremely helpful.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although my memory is not as photographic as his and the explanatory notes are not at the forefront of my mind.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): Shame.

Mr. Brady: I freely admit that the fault is entirely mine, and that it does me no credit; but I was educated south of the border, albeit at a very fine grammar school. I know that you would not want me to pursue matters relating to the English education system, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall not do so. [Interruption.] I am sure you know very well that I was educated at Altrincham grammar school, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have made many references to it in the House, and I shall continue to do so—but not on this occasion. You will be pleased to hear that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The aim of amendment No. 46 is to probe the Government's thinking. What led them away from the relatively definitive terms in the "Fairness at Work" White Paper? What—with no reference in Committee to the inclusion of training—led them to think that training should be excluded, presumably following the consultation that resulted from the White Paper? Whatever that was, it then led the Government to move on to the first draft of the Bill, which widened the scope of collective bargaining for these purposes to a considerable extent by including all the matters referred to in section 178 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. That took the Bill into the spheres of discipline, workers' membership or non-membership of trade unions, facilities for trade union officials, machinery for negotiation and consultation, and numerous other matters.
It was clearly a deliberate move on the Government's part to move from a tight definition in the White Paper to a wide definition in the first draft of the Bill. Having given only limited explanations in Committee, they have seen


fit to table amendments further tightening the scope of collective bargaining for these purposes. I must say that I welcome that.

Mr. Fabricant: Might not the Government have decided to narrow the field on which collective bargaining can be fought out because collective bargaining is being imposed on both parties? True collective bargaining, as Adair Turner has said, should be based on trust and mutual consent.

Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and makes it cogently. Such matters should indeed be conducted on a voluntary basis, with no imposition of collective bargaining arrangements that one or the other party may not want. It must be said that, given the automatic recognition procedures provided by the Bill in its present form, collective bargaining arrangements may not be wanted by either party. Perhaps that is part of the reason why the Government chose to tighten the definitions, but why has training been excluded? So far, we have heard no answer to that question.
8 pm
Why has it been considered necessary to include sub-paragraph (7)—which deals, as far as I can see, with something that would in any case have been presumed in the wider context of employment law—yet then apply paragraph 27(3) to only part of the collective bargaining arrangements, which allows the parties to be directed in how to conduct certain elements of collective bargaining, but not others? Even if there is statutory collective bargaining within the terms of the Bill, that collective bargaining will be better conducted freely and openly, as decided by the parties, rather than in a way that is constrained by the CAC's intervention. That is a point of considerable concern.
The passage of the Bill has "form." I have sought to outline its history. It began with the "Fairness at Work" White Paper. It has had extensive public consultation, particularly in relation to the training provisions. Further comment was implicitly invited by the Government in paragraph 8 of the White Paper. It has become a Bill, which goes far wider. The Government have seen fit to amend the Bill in a way that comes much closer to the tighter terms of section 178(2)(a), which is entirely appropriate.
Given that these matters were not extensively debated in the Standing Committee and that the Minister has given rather scant explanation for the to-ing and fro-ing of Government thinking on the matter, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I hope that some assurance will be given on my particular concern. By including sub-paragraph (7) and by specifically providing for voluntary flexibility, the Bill may, by implication, mean that, where there is no explicit permission for voluntary variations or voluntary flexibility in arrangements between employers and employees, flexibility does not exist. It is a legal point, but I should be grateful for the Minister's reassurance on it.

Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) has, as those of

us who have had the privilege of serving with him on the Standing Committee had anticipated, moved the amendment with characteristic perspicacity and modesty. He has sought to get a clearer view from the Secretary of State and from his advisers as to the legal effect of the schedule, which he rightly says was not extensively debated in Committee.
I make two or three more general points; I am conscious that we wish to make progress in the consideration of the Bill. My hon. Friend has laid out the scene and other colleagues wish to contribute. Therefore, I need not delay proceedings unduly.
The general principle on which my hon. Friend is surely right is that parties should be able, wherever possible, to reach voluntary arrangements for collective bargaining. That is not an issue across the Chamber; it is generally understood. Those arrangements should be as flexible and appropriate as the circumstances permit. I think that that is understood, too.
There is, however, a difference between us as to whether statutory arrangements should be made for the imposition of collective bargaining in particular cases of failure, where it does not seem possible to achieve those by voluntary agreement. The point that my hon. Friend makes is that the Government need to make it clear why they have selected the scope of collective bargaining that is to be imposed after the procedures that are set out in great detail in schedule 1. Ultimately, a declaration by the CAC as to what was required would be needed.
Two tensions can be identified. First, if collective bargaining is to be imposed—as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) said, it should be a voluntary matter—it should be imposed on the narrowest possible scope, and there should be as much freedom outwith that as possible. That is an understandable principle.
The second point to some extent conflicts with that. It is usually better, where legal concepts exist and have been codified in the 1992 trade union legislation, not to depart from those without good reason. At least their scope and definition have become matters of general awareness among practitioners of employment law, trade unions, employers and others. If we introduce a new set of definitions, we will get ourselves into a muddle.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West has identified that there is a tension. It is for the Secretary of State to explain, after my hon. Friends have made their comments, exactly how he intends his provisions to work.

Mr. Forth: It is of course with enormous trepidation that I enter the debate, surrounded as I am by those who spent many hours discussing the Bill in Committee, but I wanted to take the opportunity to raise a couple of questions with the Secretary of State.
I am intrigued by the fact that the amendment would remove the reference to sub-paragraph (7). I want to ask two questions about that. First, does that weaken the link that currently exists, as I read it, between sub-paragraphs (6) and (7)? I want some reassurance on that. At least, I thought that I wanted some reassurance until I started to consider the implications of sub-paragraph (7) itself.
I read sub-paragraph with extreme difficulty. It says:
If the parties at any time agree matters as the subject of collective bargaining".


It does not say how they will agree those matters. The term "agree" always raises more questions than it answers. We are left wondering—unless it is spelt out somewhere else that I have not found yet—exactly what mechanism there is to give effect to that agreement.
It is simply assumed that agreement will be reached. As we all know, that is easy enough to say. It is much more difficult to achieve, particularly in what are sometimes tense or confrontational environments.
Therefore, even though sub-paragraph says:
If the parties at any time agree matters",
that is not the end of the matter. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to satisfy me as to how he envisages that agreement will be reached in the different contexts in which discussions take place in the workplace environment.

Mr. Ian Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that collective bargaining agreements and recognition of procedural agreements are arrived at by negotiation between the economic partners. It is right that those agreements will be completely reviewed only from time to time. In the in-between time, some agreements may be reached. That is normally done by exchange of letters between the parties. When the whole agreement is reviewed at a future date, earlier agreements are incorporated.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's explanation. I am interested that he believes that that answers all the possible questions that might arise from the words that I have read out. That may be the case, but I need the Secretary of State's confirmation of that. I want to hear him say that that, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, concludes the matter. It does not necessarily conclude the matter, however, because the schedule continues to say that
references to collective bargaining are to negotiations concerning the agreed matters; but this does not apply in construing paragraph 27(3).
That seems to take us into deeper waters. The paragraph in question brings in the CAC, and refers to its specifying
to the parties the method by which they are to conduct collective bargaining.
According to my reading of the provisions, there is a danger that we shall get into a vicious circle, going round and round and round. I am sure that that was not intended by those who drafted the Bill, and I hope that the Secretary of State will assure me that is not the Bill's effect. However, I am worried that my hon. Friend's amendment appears to remove the consequential link between paragraph 2(6) and paragraph 2(7), and that point must be explored.
The lack of a satisfactory definition of "agree" may also give rise to problems, unless the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) was right. The reference to paragraph 27(3) may in addition be inconclusive when it comes to closing the loop that I have identified. Indeed, it may perpetuate that loop.
The amendment, well intentioned as it is, could complicate matters and weaken this part of the schedule. A cursory reading implies those consequential effects of the amendment, and I look forward to hearing the Secretary of State set these matters straight so that we may make ready progress.

Mr. Fabricant: One of my greatest fears is that when I drop dead, my tombstone will read, "He meant well." That phrase also sums up the Bill. It means well, but what will be its effect? More to the point, what will be the effect of its definition of collective bargaining?
I did not serve on the Bill's Standing Committee. However, I have had experience of running a company, a point that I mentioned at some length last night. One thing that I have learned is that collective bargaining is dynamic, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) would agree. If it is to be dynamic, it cannot be constrained by a narrow definition of what can be discussed, particularly if it is not entered into freely, as may be the case under the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) has identified, with his customary incisiveness and perception, two tensions in the Bill. If collective bargaining is imposed, there must be freedom to scale many heights and to discuss matters that develop one into another. To reach a voluntary agreement between the two parties, as the hon. Gentleman whose constituency I do not know has said—

Mr. Ian Stewart: Eccles.

Mr. Fabricant: I am sorry.

Mr. Forth: Go on, give us your Eccles impression.

Mr. Fabricant: To continue, there are two economic forces—labour and capital, in the shape of the employer. If they are to reach agreement, it cannot be imposed. An imposed agreement is a frail agreement which will not stand the test of time.

Mr. Bercow: I understand my hon. Friend's point that agreement cannot be imposed. However, on reflection, would he not accept that the prospect, which it seems to me his argument conjures up, of substantial numbers of employers across the country manning the barricades, in support of the extension of the range of matters over which collective bargaining can and should take place, is remote in the extreme? I accept that my hon. Friend has a fertile imagination, but it is difficult to envisage such a circumstance.

Mr. Fabricant: I do not like to argue with my hon. Friend, but that question was rather circuitous, with at least three double negatives in it. If he would like to repeat it more simply so that I can understand what information it is that he wants of me, I shall happily give way again.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend to whom I apologise if, inadvertently, I have, at a not particularly late hour, led him astray. The purport of my inquiry was simple. Does he believe, on reflection, that many employers will want, and argue for, an extension of the range of matters subject to collective bargaining beyond those set out by the Government?

Mr. Fabricant: I truly believe that if collective bargaining, by which I mean bargaining of any kind, is voluntarily entered into by both parties, each should be free to discuss whatever it wishes. As we debate the Bill,


similar bargaining is going on in Belfast, and we all hope that it will succeed. If it is to be successful, however, it is impossible to set constraints, saying, "We will discuss these issues, but under no circumstances will we discuss those ones." That is no way for bargaining to work.
If two parties are forced to discuss matters, forcing them to debate two or three issues to the exclusion of others will doom the bargaining to failure. I find it strange that the Government, who rightly identify the importance of training, have chosen to exclude it from collective bargaining. What is the motivation for that? Is there something cynical behind it, or something subtle? Is there some sub-plot that we do not understand? Or, as I suspect, are the Government simply naive? The Secretary of State, nice as he is, does not come from a management background, although the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry comes from both a management and a broadcasting background, which is as fine as a background can be.
There are tensions in the Bill, then. If we make a change in statutory provisions, it will, if my brief reading of the Committee Hansard is correct, be made with very little discussion. Will the Secretary of State tell us the philosophy behind the changes and the basis on which he will make changes to statutory provisions in place since 1992?
Finally, some costs must arise from the matters raised in this debate and the debate on Government amendment No. 59. I asked early last night what the costs of balloting would be, and I have heard no reply. I am suspicious that the Government have not done their sums, as they have failed to do on many other occasions. They have not taken into account the costs for corporations large—a corporation employing more than 20 people—or small.

Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to trouble my hon. Friend once again, but I am concerned about the potential opening of the floodgates if his argument in favour of extending the range of matters that may be subject to collective bargaining is adopted. Does he agree that, if his idea is followed—employers do not want the range of matters to be extended beyond what the Government envisage, but some organised employees do—the only way in which the matter may be resolved is by a determination by the Central Arbitration Committee? Is he not concerned that, if the Central Arbitration Committee is in future composed of—from our point of view—undesirable or unreliable persons, the consequences could be hazardous for firms in the British economy?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In dealing with arbitration issues, we most definitely are going wide of amendment No. 46, which is narrowly drawn.

Mr. Fabricant: I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who argues on the premise that imposition of collective bargaining is already a fact. For all we know, the Government may see reason. Heaven knows, we may even win in a Division on Third Reading and defeat the Bill. The very imposition of collective bargaining is undesirable. We are arguing that, if it is imposed, it should be wide-ranging. However, if my hon. Friend is asking me whether that is what

employers and employees want, I should say no, as I do not believe that collective bargaining should be forced on anyone.
I remind the House that great friends of Labour—although I do not think that they will be friends for much longer—such as News Corporation, and especially Rupert Murdoch, are only too aware that, had the Government's current proposals been law, Mr. Murdoch would not have been able or motivated to save The Times, after its staff had been on strike for six months, or to crack the stranglehold of the print unions.

Mr. Bercow: Perhaps my hon. Friend was envisaging a breaking of the stranglehold?

Mr. Fabricant: No, I prefer a cracking of the stranglehold, as it is more illustrative and imaginative.

Mr. Ian Stewart: How would the hon. Gentleman resolve a situation in which a company has 100 employees, all of whom are trade union members and wish to have a collective bargaining agreement with the employer, but the employer does not wish to have such an agreement?

Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman has got to the crux of the matter. The situation will be resolved because it is impossible to run a company in those conditions. If I were running a company in which 80 or 90 per cent. of employees were members of a trade union, it would be impossible not to have bargaining. That is the reality. I am not against the closed shop—although I shall not stray too far into that issue, which is beyond the scope of amendment No. 46, although it addresses the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised.
Many companies—such as Unilever's subdivisions—prefer dealing with only one trade union, but they do so by voluntary arrangement, which is convenient for both trade union and employer.

Mr. Forth: I am not ready for this.

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend, who lounges on the same Bench as me, disagrees, but he is being a little naive in the matter. If such arrangements are not imposed by law, they may be advantageous.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is being unduly provocative at this stage in the proceedings. He seems, uncharacteristically, to have forgotten or overlooked the rights of individuals. He seems to be taking us back to the dark days when a cosy arrangement between an employer and unions could sweep away the rights of individual employees. I am sure—knowing my hon. Friend as I do—that he would not want that to happen; would he?

Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. However, as in all these matters, one has to balance various tensions—to use the word used by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry. If both an employer and a group of employees feel that there is an arrangement by which a majority will be able to operate collective bargaining, anarchy may be avoided. If there is no agreement on that basis, there may be anarchy.
I tell the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) that, in practice, the type of situation that he described does not occur.

Mr. Ian Stewart: It does.

Mr. Fabricant: If the hon. Gentleman would like to give me an example in which it does, I should be interested to hear it.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is trying to approach the matter reasonably. In 20 years as a practitioner and negotiator in industry, I have often encountered many situations in which recognition has been applied for but rejected, although more than 80 per cent. of employees were union members.

Mr. Fabricant: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Nevertheless, I asked him for a specific example, but he failed to give me one.
I do not want to take up any more of the House's time. I have made it clear that I believe that collective bargaining may be successful only if both parties wish to enter into it, and both parties are free to explore a number of different matters. I do not think that the Government can impose successful collective bargaining, just as I do not think that the Government can create wealth—which is created by entrepreneurs, and by the hard sweat of labour.
As I said, the Government's proposals are just another example of their good intentions—which, sadly, will harm and not enhance labour relations.

Mr. Byers: If amendment No. 46 is pressed to a Division, I shall ask the House to reject it—which will disappoint some right. hon. and hon. Opposition Members, although probably not the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who would be alarmed by the amendment's effect in extending the matters subject to collective bargaining. If the amendment is pressed to a Division, the Government Whips may have some difficulty in keeping some of my hon. Friends from supporting the amendment, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady).

Mr. Brady: I advise the right hon. Gentleman not to continue on that tack—as he is beginning to tempt me to press the amendment, and I might otherwise be easily placated.

Mr. Byers: I should warn the hon. Gentleman that, although there are many measures in the Bill dealing with security of employment, they do not protect hon. Members. If he were to press the amendment, he may well find his own security of employment threatened.

Mr. Brady: rose—

Mr. Byers: I should like to press on and reply briefly to the debate, as the situation is fairly straightforward.
The Bill provides that, where there is recognition through the statutory procedure, collective bargaining will be required in matters of pay, hours and holidays. There is nothing to stop employers and employees agreeing to increase the topics beyond those three specific ones, but it

will be a matter for decision and for agreement to be reached. We believe that that is the appropriate approach to take.
The White Paper, "Fairness at Work", made it very clear that those were the three, very discrete topics on which we should expect there to be negotiations in collective bargaining, when it is subject to the statutory procedures. We did not want to go beyond that, as we recognised that the provisions would have to be tightly focused. However, there was a residual issue on training, on which we consulted separately.

Mr. Bercow: In view of what the Secretary of State said about the potential scope for voluntary extension of the matters subject to collective negotiation, will he confirm that this is an example of a situation in which paragraph 141 on page 35 of the explanatory notes to the Bill would apply?

Mr. Byers: I have to concede to the hon. Gentleman that, off hand, I cannot recall the precise details of that page—for which I do apologise. What I do know is that amendment No. 46 would extend the three specific topics that we have in mind. There is nothing to prevent the parties from agreeing to that, but when the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West moved the amendment, he referred specifically to the reasoning behind the proposal for training being dealt with in a slightly different way. In the White Paper, we identified this issue as one on which we wanted genuine consultation, which has now taken place. Our view is that it would not be appropriate to extend the three areas to include training, and thereby make it four areas—my numeracy skills are improving. It would be better if training were dealt with by consultation. There is a requirement elsewhere in the Bill that if a union is recognised, it will have to be consulted on training. So the matter is covered in that way.
To clarify the position for the benefit of hon. Members who were not on the Committee or who could not attend when this matter was debated, I confirm that the collective bargaining procedures that go through the statutory process are restricted to pay, hours and holidays. By agreement that can be extended, but it is otherwise restricted to those three areas.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, because he is being most helpful. I detect that he is drawing his remarks to a close, and I want ask him to deal with the matter of the inclusion of sub-paragraph (7)—with his legal background he should be well able to do so—which seems to me to be otiose. It provides a right to voluntary extension, but, as I understand it, that would ordinarily be assumed.

Mr. Byers: My understanding is that sub-paragraphs (6) and (7) address two different situations. Sub-paragraph (6) states that references to collective bargaining are to negotiations relating to pay, hours and holidays, but sub-paragraph (7) addresses the situation in which parties agree further matters as the subject of collective bargaining. We need to cross-reference to paragraph 27(3), which states:
If at the end of the agreement period the parties have not made such an agreement the CAC must specify to the parties the method by which they are to conduct collective bargaining.


That is if there is eventually a failure to agree, whereas paragraph 2(7) deals with a situation in which an agreement has been reached. That distinction needs to be made. For those reasons, we need paragraph 2(7), because it addresses a different situation in which there is a statutory recognition and the parties enter discussions to extend collective bargaining beyond the three areas. If those discussions subsequently break down, they revert back to the Central Arbitration Committee to establish procedures by which an agreement can be reached. I hope that that has clarified the matter for the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West.

Mr. Bercow: I should like to clarify the Government's fixity of purpose in this matter. An employer may be forced against his will to engage in the collective negotiation provided for in the Bill. Is it the right hon. Gentleman's position that that negotiation should be obliged to take place even if an employer, as a conscientious objector, begins procedures to wind up his company?

Mr. Byers: If there is statutory recognition, an employer will be under an obligation to address only the matters of pay, hours and holiday. Employers do not have to embark on a discussion or negotiation to extend collective bargaining beyond those three discrete areas. Our concern about amendment No. 46 is that it would extend it beyond those three areas.
I hope that I have addressed the concerns of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West. In the light of the observations that I have made and the clarification of Government thinking that I have given, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Secretary of State, and to colleagues on both sides of the House who have contributed to a helpful debate. As I began by saying, this issue was not fully investigated in Committee, and it has been helpful to have on the record wider and fuller discussion on the points raised.
We had excellent contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), as well as interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who was at one point uncharacteristically illiberal. He seemed to be seeking to constrain the rights of parties voluntarily to enter into agreements. I would certainly not follow him in that direction.
The Secretary of State, in an obviously jocular way, suggested that the Government's current overlarge majority might become larger. I can set his mind at rest on that. Yesterday, he invited my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) to stand against him in Tyneside, North. The Secretary of State is welcome to stand against me in Altrincham and Sale, West at the next general election. We would probably gain some support from the elements of his party who would vote for my amendment to achieve its ends.
The Secretary of State is right to say that the Government's amendment draws these matters tighter than amendment No. 46. The Government were right to

do that. My purpose in tabling the amendment was to explore some of the wider issues around the Government's amendments. We have had a useful debate, and we have had helpful reassurances from the Secretary of State. His style is always persuasive—even if the substance is not—and, in a spirit of generosity, I can say that I have been reassured and to some extent persuaded by him. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 66, in page 20, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert—
'(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a), any worker employed by an associated company incorporated outside Great Britain must be ignored unless the day the request was made fell within a period during which he ordinarily worked in Great Britain.
(3A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b), any worker employed by an associated company incorporated outside Great Britain must be ignored in relation to a week unless the whole or any part of that week fell within a period during which he ordinarily worked in Great Britain.
(3B) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (3) and (3A), a worker who is employed on board a ship registered in the United Kingdom shall be treated as ordinarily working in Great Britain unless—

(a) the ship is registered at a port outside Great Britain,
(b) the employment is wholly outside Great Britain, or
(c) the worker is not ordinarily resident in Great Britain.'—[Mr. Wills.]

Mr. Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 20, line 35, leave out '10' and insert '15'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 20, in page 22, line 43, leave out '10' and insert '15'.

No. 21, in page 23, line 15, leave out '10' and insert '15'.
No. 22, in page 33, line 2, leave out '10' and insert '15'.
No. 23, in page 33, line 26, leave out '10' and insert '15'.
No. 24, in page 35, line 3, leave out '10' and insert '15'.
No. 25, in page 35, line 26, leave out '10' and insert '15'.
No. 26, in page 36, line 19, leave out '10' and insert '15'.
No. 27, in page 37, line 7, leave out '10' and insert '15'.
No. 28, in page 42, line 22, leave out '10' and insert '15'.
No. 29, in page 43, line 2, leave out '10' and insert '15'.
No. 30, in page 43, line 34, leave out '10' and insert '15'.
No. 31, in page 45, line 31, leave out '10' and insert '15'.
No. 32, in page 50, line 16, leave out '10' and insert '15'.
No. 33, in page 51, line 47, leave out '10' and insert '15'.

Mr. Boswell: For those who were studying the progress of the amendment paper, I should point out that we tabled this amendment early on and had a brisk debate in Standing Committee on the morning of 16 March. The background to the amendments is concern about the reasonable period of notice for an employer to respond to the request of a union or unions for collective bargaining. During the debate in Committee, a number of hon. Members and I challenged the 20-day period which the Secretary of State had assigned. With no disrespect to the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson), it is a pity that he is not present now. In Committee, he dealt with


some of the briefing that had been received by members of the Committee from the Engineering Employers Federation. He said:
I have some sympathy for the case that the Engineering Employers Federation is making, particularly in relation to small businesses. I am not sure that I would want to go as far as it does and ask for 20 working days' notice. However, a response period of two working weeks could unnecessarily cause problems for some small employers".
He went on:
A compromise of three weeks would be more flexible.
He then, no doubt, alarmed some of the Government Whips by saying:
I am minded to support the amendments of the hon. Member for Daventry."—[0fficial Report, Standing Committee E, 16 March 1999; c. 373.]
It was kind of him to say that. We would not hold it against him. He was unable to sustain that in a Division, because we did not give him the opportunity to do so, but he would have that opportunity were we to press the amendment to a Division tonight.

Mr. Ian Stewart: The Minister convinced him.

Mr. Boswell: I am not wholly sure that he did, as he did not speak again, but we shall leave that as it is. It is for the hon. Gentleman to speak for himself.
We press amendments with different degrees of force and conviction, either in a probing way or, as in this case, with a rather strong feeling. The important thing is that Governments should legislate for an appropriate period.
One concern, which I think was in the hon. Gentleman's mind, and was certainly in my mind when I tabled the amendment suggesting a longer period of 20 days, rather than the 10 days that the Government have prescribed as the first period of response—forgive me if I read the signals wrongly a moment ago; there are rather a lot of figures in the schedule—was that that might not be a reasonable period in which a small employer could respond.
As small employers do not necessarily have elaborate support and administrative systems and legal and other advice on tap—circumstances that have been discussed elsewhere during our consideration of the Bill—if they received a letter out of the blue from a union requesting the initiation of recognition procedures, they might have some difficulty in responding within only 10 days. Therefore, they would be on the way to what, in shorthand, I will call delinquency, and a decision might be taken over their heads.
Some might receive a letter or a phone call and deal with it immediately—it is good business practice to get on with one's correspondence, as I hope all hon. Members would—but there are such things as pressures to get an order out, as the hon. Member for Dudley, South mentioned in his brief intervention, and people might go away on holiday or letters might be mislaid, although that might not be an easy matter with which to deal. There are many situations in which a response may not be immediate. I readily concede to the Secretary of State, before he bases his argument on it, that a mere failure to respond within 10 days does not automatically lead to the imposition of statutory collective bargaining. There are a variety of hoops through which to go.
However, I think that the feeling in Committee was that the period has been drawn unreasonably tightly for the small employer. I mentioned the hon. Member for Dudley, South, but the general tone was that the Committee was not averse to the amendment. In order to pick up what I described in Committee as a growing consensus, I have tabled these amendments which prescribe not 20 working days or four working weeks, which we set out in Committee, but a more modest, compromise version, of 15 working days or three working weeks. I hope that that will commend itself to the Minister.
Another possible approach was adumbrated by the Under-Secretary in his response to the debate. He explained the Bill's various interlocking provisions and suggested that it was not necessary to extend the period in general terms. However, towards the conclusion of his remarks—perhaps as a debating point, but it was an interesting point—he said:
If he"—
the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), who is temporarily out of the Chamber—
is suggesting that we take a general power to amend all aspects of the schedule, we shall consider that interesting suggestion.
Immediately before that, he said:
we shall consider a general evaluation of the law."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 16 March 1999; c. 376.]
I have detected no general amending power in the schedule, even in those many pages, and we have heard no further details of a general evaluation of the law. Events may show that 10 days is an adequate period for a first response, but I am inclined to think that it is not. In Committee, I tabled a proposal for a 20-day period. That may have been unduly generous because, again, I immediately concede to the Secretary of State, before he makes the argument, that we do not want to send a signal that people should put such a letter behind the clock and hope that it will go away; they need to respond.
The amendments therefore suggest that 15 working days is appropriate. There is no science in the precise number. We are trying to produce what the Secretary of State said that he intends to produce: a sensible working understanding of how the legislation might work. It is an attempt to maintain its credibility and coherence. The worst possible initiation for his legislation would be a technical slip by a comparatively innocent, well-intentioned employer who did not respond in the prescribed period and was caught in a process from which he could not readily escape. I fear that that will happen.

Mr. Stewart: In 20 years, I have not come across an experienced full-time officer who would act in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. That is because such officers immediately seek to form good relationships with employers. It would not be to a trade union's advantage to press the issue in the way that he described, unless the employer was antagonistic in the first place.

Mr. Boswell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He made many constructive comments from his deep industrial experience in Committee. I understand what he is driving at. I am sure that he describes the typical situation. If a union decided, in normal circumstances, that the moment had come to go for collective bargaining under the new rules, it would ring


up the employer to say so and ask him to negotiate. It would send a formal letter confirming that as evidence to establish its position vis-a-vis any subsequent statutory proceedings. That is not an issue between us, but, with respect, he describes the situation that has existed for most of his experience, when there has not been a statutory collective bargaining procedure; it has been an option. We may debate more widely elsewhere whether that is a good idea. Unions have had to be conciliatory to elicit positive responses from employers.
I am worried about where industrial relations between union members, a union representative and employers are comparatively poor, which neither the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) nor I want, and where there is no statutory recognition. Someone might think that the right way to get such recognition would be to bang in a formal application and dare the employer to resist it. In those circumstances, the union might think that it would help its case if the employer failed to respond in the statutory first period. If it sent a letter in a buff envelope requesting collective bargaining, unheralded by a warning telephone call, it would add to the file, if nothing else, if it were able to say that the employer took no notice of it.

Mr. Stewart: That situation would not arise because it would not be to the trade union's advantage to go for a legally imposed agreement. As the hon. Gentleman said, the scope of voluntary agreements is much wider and more attractive than that of legally enforced ones.

Mr. Boswell: I readily agree with the hon. Gentleman in respect of what I hope is the normal case. We will consider later whether we should beef up the context in which the Central Arbitration Committee will work. We have tabled an amendment on the promotion of good industrial relations in the procedure, which we will debate in the proper place. Despite his positive experience and, I am sure, his positive practice when he represented a union in such matters, there will be cases where people try it on, whether out of malice or for another reason.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that a longer period would be to the advantage of the unions in such cases, because an employer who was presented with almost a fait accompli would be far more likely to say no and go for the extended 28-day secondary period than the one who had the extra time to give the proposal the proper consideration that it deserved?

Mr. Boswell: Indeed. I commented in a rather more vernacular way in Committee on that precise point, when I said that the employer might respond to such an approach by saying:
'if you think that is where I am going, sunshine, I don't want anything to do with it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 16 March 1999; c. 378.]
That is perhaps the point that my hon. Friend has in mind.
I say to the hon. Member for Eccles that there are cases in which relations are rather poor, and we do not believe that the statutory procedure will deal with them. We wish it well in the sense that we hope that it will, but it is precisely in such circumstances that the various provisions of the law will be required to work. Therefore, we think that a more reasonable period for the first response would be appropriate.
I want to draw my remarks to a close, but there is one other aspect of the matter to which I wish to draw attention. We laboured long and hard and, the Under-Secretary will concede, not unconstructively for many hours in Committee. We had a good, balanced debate on the issue. The Opposition made some compelling points. There was a degree of what might loosely be termed "emerging consensus" in favour of 15 days. It would not subvert the Government's intentions to accept the amendment, and I rather hope that they will.

Mr. Fabricant: I think that I will take issue with my hon. Friend for the first time this evening. He normally has an analytical mind, but he said that there was no science in the proposal that he was making today. I suggest that there is a little science in it. As we know, the Bill does not apply to small businesses. The definition of a small business under the terms of the Bill is any business with 20 employees or fewer. I would say that, in practice, firms of 50, some would say 100, employees or fewer were still small businesses. Small businesses operate under difficult conditions. It is only too apparent that a letter can be received from a union requesting collective bargaining at a time when people are away on maternity or paternity leave or on holiday, and it can be difficult for the employers to respond within two weeks.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) about the importance of the temporary labour market. We all accepted in the Chamber a few hours ago that that is important for the mobility of labour and to enable people such as married women to enter and leave jobs flexibly. However, it is a fallacy to assume that key people who are away on holiday or maternity leave can be easily replaced. They cannot. I can well envisage a smaller company that comes within the ambit of the Bill in which some key person is away when the request from a union is received, so that the two-week limit is exceeded.
The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart), who has temporarily left the Chamber, has said that it is unlikely that a trade union will wish to cause difficulty in relations with the company by taking action that would precipitate a court appearance, but, if that is the case, one can argue that the provisions in the Bill are not necessary. The fact that the provisions are there demonstrates that it could happen. Although I have not tabled an amendment, given our debate last night about the size of companies, the Secretary of State might consider the following alternative. If he were to be rigid and say that, for large companies, two weeks—10 working days—are long enough, he might consider those companies that fall within the ambit of the Bill, but have fewer than 50, or fewer than 100, employees. Why could they not be allowed a full month—20 working days?

Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend will recall that there is already a break in the seamless uniformity of the Bill, because a different regime for the initiation of collective bargaining procedure is allowed for small firms with 20 or fewer employees. It would be easy to extend that exemption to small firms with a rather higher number of employees so as to include those time limits.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes a most helpful suggestion. Indeed, there is nothing seamless about


the legislation; it is digital in its step functions from one area to another. It would be consistent with the shape of the Bill if another such step function were introduced. It would at least be an acknowledgement by the Secretary of State that a small company can be one that has more than 20 employees.

Mr. Boswell: I am sorry to trouble my hon. Friend again. His use of the word "digital" prompts me to ask whether he has any information about the Government's appointment of their digital e-envoy. That was scheduled for 31 March, so they have three hours and four minutes to make an announcement.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but I see that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are looking at me as if to say that this is not an area into which I should move. I shall not do so, but would add that I was expecting a statement yesterday about the Freedom of Information Bill. That did not occur either, but I shall say no more on that matter.
If the Secretary of State were to acknowledge tonight that a large company is not one with 21 or more employees, that would show that he understands the pressures under which companies work. Of course many small companies—many large companies—allow people to take two-week holidays. I ask the Secretary of State to imagine that the accounts director or the bookkeeper of a small company has gone away on holiday not expecting any important communications to arrive, but that something important does arrive and by the time that the bookkeeper—I use that word advisedly—returns, the two-week period for dealing with that communication has expired.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's remarks and noted his concentration on the number of workers for the purpose of defining a small business. Does he think that the Government would find it more acceptable if large, medium and small businesses were defined according to turnover?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the amendment.

Mr. Fabricant: I shall not pursue my hon. Friend's point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
However, the capability of a company to respond within two weeks is based less on turnover than on the number of people employed by that company. For example, there is an American corporation—I had better not mention its name; it is based in Seattle and it is not Microsoft—which has a paid-up value of £44 billion, but has only 24 employees. Nearly all of us use that company's software to allow us to see television pictures.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is woolgathering. He should come back to the amendment.

9 pm

Mr. Fabricant: My point is that it is not a company's turnover or profitability that defines its ability to deal with the notice from a union requesting collective bargaining, but the number of people employed by that company. The definition of a small and a large company in the Bill

reflects the Secretary of State's acknowledgement that companies employing fewer than 20 should be subject to a different number of legal requirements than a company employing more than 20. However, I believe that a company employing 21 people should not be regarded as a large company.
The amendment requesting three weeks—15 working days—in which to deal with the notice from the union is not unreasonable in respect of a smaller company. If the Minister rejects the amendment, large public companies, such as Unilever, will continue to be well able to deal with requests within a two-week period; but I would ask him to consider that companies of an interim size—employing up to, say, 50 employees—should be allowed rather more time.
Accepting the amendment would demonstrate a recognition of the fact that companies operate in difficult times and that the implementation of this Bill and others that have recently been enacted—including one that will come into force tomorrow, the name of which I shall not mention, lest you rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—might restrict the number of employees employed by a company, force the individuals employed by that company to work even harder and so restrict the amount of time available to them to comply with the requirements of the Bill.
I simply ask the Secretary of State to demonstrate tonight that he is not the enemy of small business, but its friend. I ask him to show not only a little flexibility and a little heart, but a little of the mind and intelligence needed to ensure that small businesses survive. I ask him to accept the amendment, or at least introduce some suitable compromise on the basis that I have suggested.

Mr. Byers: This issue was debated at some length in Standing Committee. There is clearly a strongly held view among Opposition Members that 15 days—or perhaps 20—is the appropriate period, but I am not sure that that is correct. It is a question of balance, and we believe that 10 days is right in the circumstances. We have heard the argument and considered the issues, but the Government's view remains the same. I am sorry that I cannot agree with Opposition Members' points, but I hope that, having had the debate, they will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Boswell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 23, line 48, at end insert—
'(c) the proposed recognition of the union or unions would contribute to good industrial relations.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 45, in page 24, line 15, leave out from '18' to end of line 18.
Government amendments Nos. 71 and 72.

Mr. Boswell: I shall be brief, as I now sense that the House might wish to conclude these matters. I shall be able to compress my remarks in view of the express willingness of the Secretary of State to listen to us, and perhaps to some extent he can take some of my points as read.
The amendment would build into the Central Arbitration Committee's criteria a test that
the proposed recognition of the union or unions would contribute to good industrial relations.
That is a objective which we all share.
The context in which we tabled the amendment was the concern reportedly expressed by John Monks in respect of the restructuring of the trade union movement to produce a modern trade union structure. As the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry knows from our previous debates, I wish no ill toward the trade union movement; in fact, my feelings are to the contrary. The amendment also reflects our desire to eliminate potential conflicts of interest, one of which arises from inter-union disputes, which we are anxious to avoid.
My understanding of the Government amendments in the group is that they would put the CAC more in the driving seat, instead of its relying on union certification. That appears sensible and likely to reduce evidential arguments. Subject to what the Secretary of State has to say about his amendments, I am inclined to welcome them.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The two Conservative amendments cause me some concern. Under paragraph 17, union recognition is based on very clear and exact criteria, such as 10 per cent. union membership or where the majority of workers are likely to favour recognition of the union. The Conservatives wish to introduce a much vaguer criterion in amendment No. 8, which states:
the proposed recognition of the union or unions would contribute to good industrial relations.
I should like to hear an explanation of how the CAC would judge, on any objective basis, which unions would contribute to good or to bad industrial relations.
If the amendments were passed—I hope they will not be—how would the criterion be measured? How would the new Tory criterion fit with the idea of the democratic choice of the work force? It is surely up to the workers to decide the efficacy or otherwise of the union that they choose to represent them. We should offer the work force more freedom of choice, not less. The amendments are basically anti-democratic and are designed to restrict workers' freedom of choice.
The second Conservative amendment, which refers to "a majority", underlines my suspicions. I have the feeling that the amendments are designed to hamper rather than help the legislation. I believe that the Government have got it right in this case and the amendments have got it wrong.

Mr. Byers: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) believes, at least on this occasion, that the Government have got it right. I am inclined to agree with him, and I shall ask hon. Members to resist amendments Nos. 8 and 45 if they are pressed to a Division.
Government amendments Nos. 71 and 72 clarify the way in which the Central Arbitration Committee is to decide on automatic recognition. They allow the CAC to examine in a little more detail whether a majority of workers are likely to favour recognition or de-recognition. They alter slightly the criteria by which the CAC decides whether a union has 50 per cent.membership in a

bargaining unit. Instead of the union merely showing that it has 50 per cent. of members, the CAC must be satisfied that that is the case. In the vast majority of cases, the results should be the same. However, if they are not, it is better for the CAC to decide to hold a ballot.
The amendments make the method of the CAC's scrutiny of applications clearer and a little more rigorous. That is a desirable result, and I hope that hon. Members will be able to accept Government amendments Nos. 71 and 72.

Mr. Boswell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 71, in page 24, line 17, leave out
'union shows (or unions show)'
and insert 'CAC is satisfied'.
No. 72, in page 24, line 46, leave out
'union does not show (or unions do not show)'
and insert 'CAC is not satisfied'.—[Mr. Byers.]

Mr. Welsh: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 27, line 17, leave out from 'voting' to end of line 18.
I should like also to discuss amendment No. 38, in page 48, line 26, leave out from 'voting' to end of line 27.
Schedule 1 is concerned with the recognition of trade unions by employers for the purpose of conducting collective bargaining on behalf of the workers. Voluntary agreements are still promoted as the best solution, but schedule 1 legislates for statutory recognition. If more than half the workers are already union members and the CAC is satisfied that there is no need for a ballot, the union can be recognised automatically at that stage; otherwise, there will be a secret ballot of the work force.
In order for a trade union to succeed in a ballot on recognition under schedule 1, it must be supported by at least 40 per cent. of the work force—not just a simple majority of those voting. However, the 1997 Labour manifesto did not refer to any such threshold. It said:
People should be free to join or not to join a union. Where they do decide to join and where a majority of the relevant workforce votes in a ballot for the union to represent them, the union should be recognised. This promotes stable and orderly industrial relations.
I certainly agree with that.

Mr. Richard Page: I realise that the hon. Gentleman wants to make progress. However, would his proposal not be divisive for the small business man who knows every one of his 20 or 25 employees? Would it not create two different authorities inside a company?

Mr. Welsh: There is recognition of small companies, and they would not be involved.

Mr. Page: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Welsh: No, I want to make progress.
A review of the 40 per cent. threshold was promised in the White Paper of May 1998, which stated:
This number will be reviewed after legislation has been in place for a period of time so that it can be altered if it is shown to be unworkable".
Whether such a review will come to pass remains to be seen.
The amendments would settle the matter by abolishing the 40 per cent. threshold rule, especially because employment relations and trade union law remain reserved to Westminster and are not to be devolved to a Scottish Parliament. Hon. Members should understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and I are justifiably wary of any 40 per cent. voting threshold, having lived through a similar rigged referendum method in Scotland in the 1970s.
In any 40 per cent. rule, the dead, those who are ill and those who abstain are all considered to have been against the proposition and to have voted no. All of them will add to the 40 per cent. barrier, whether or not that was their true intention. Even if a majority yes vote is obtained, it can be nullified by a 40 per cent. rule. Under such a rule, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) would have failed in the Labour party leadership election. He would not even have met a 20 per cent. threshold. If a 40 per cent. rule had been set, London would not have its own government, even though that proposal got a 72 per cent. yes vote.
It is better to let the decision rest with the democratic majority of those who bother to vote, and a maximum turnout should be encouraged to ascertain the true wishes of the work force.
Our amendments have the support of the GMB, Unison, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the TUC. Given past experience, I hope that the amendments will be supported.

Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) made interesting points, but I should like to pose a question to the House, particularly the Secretary of State.
The presumption in the hon. Gentleman's argument is that a ballot for the selection of a union to represent a work force is in all cases and in all ways the same as the election of a democratic representative to the Government of a country or an area. There are different philosophical views about whether that is correct. Will the Secretary of State clarify for me and my colleagues why he believes that it is correct and fair to impose a threshold for the selection of union representation and not to have a full, democratic election among those who decide to vote, as would be the case in elections for representation to a Government or local councils?

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I support amendments Nos. 37 and 38. The 40 per cent. hurdle was included in the Bill simply because of pressure from the Confederation of British Industry and other employers organisations. It has nothing to do with industrial democracy or democratic principles. It is intended to make trade union recognition that bit more difficult to obtain.
It is a well-established part of this country's democratic tradition that those who participate in a democratic process such as a ballot should determine its outcome.

However, if the 40 per cent. hurdle is allowed to stand, those who do not participate will also be taken into account in determining the result because that threshold relates not to those who participate but to those who are eligible to participate, whether they vote or not.
We could have a scenario in which, for example, 66 per cent., or nearly two thirds, of the relevant work force could participate in a ballot, and 60 per cent. of them could be in favour of trade union recognition, yet that would not pass the 40 per cent. hurdle. Alternatively, 60 per cent. of the relevant work force could participate in the ballot, and 66 per cent., or nearly two thirds, of that 60 per cent. could vote for trade union recognition, yet they would fail to reach the 40 per cent. hurdle.
To my mind, that makes a mockery of democracy. As the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) pointed out, if that were applied to parliamentary elections, it would make parliamentary democracy virtually unworkable. Even this Government, with their massive majority in the House, cannot say that they have the support of 40 per cent. of all those eligible to vote in the UK. If the 40 per cent. hurdle were applied to parliamentary constituencies, many hon. Members would not be in the House today.
There was an unhappy precedent in Scotland exactly 20 years ago this month, when we had a referendum on the then Labour Government's proposal to set up a Scottish Assembly, as it was called at that time. George Cunningham, a Labour Member of Parliament, had tabled a 40 per cent. wrecking amendment, the effect of which was similar to what is proposed in the Bill. In that referendum, the majority of people who participated in the ballot voted in favour of a Scottish Assembly, but the people of Scotland were denied it because of the 40 per cent. wrecking amendment. That led to 18 years of bitterness and caused much ill feeling in Scotland and elsewhere.
If we translate that situation into the sphere of industrial relations, and if we had a similar situation as a result of an industrial ballot, it would be a recipe for conflict and could lead to bitterness for some time between employers and employees until another ballot was held. I hope that the Government can be persuaded to think again and will learn from past mistakes.
I never thought that I would see the day when any Labour Government would be resisting a pro-trade union amendment tabled by the Scottish National party. More than 20 years ago, when I was already a Member of Parliament, I remember a Scottish trade unionist sending telegrams to hon. Members. There were no e-mails, faxes or other sophisticated methods of communication at that time. Indeed, the most sophisticated was the telegram. The Scottish trade union movement sent telegrams to Scottish Members of Parliament of various parties, pleading with them to vote for the Bill to save the aircraft and shipbuilding industries in Scotland. I remember the disdain with which those telegrams were treated by some members of the SNP. I think that it was Hamish Watt—[Interruption.] It was not the hon. Members for Angus or for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), but Hamish Watt who made a point of tearing up the telegrams on the Floor of the House.
As I say, I never thought that I would live to see the day when a Labour Government would refuse to listen to the voice of the trade union movement of Scotland or anywhere else. The Scottish Trades Union Congress is certainly in favour of the amendments.
When Ron Hayward was general secretary of the Labour party, one of his favourite sayings was, "Never forget whence you came." He was referring to the fact that the Labour party was born out of the trade union movement. I wonder sometimes what has happened. I think that sometimes the present lot have forgotten whence they came. More seriously, I think that there is growing concern in Scotland and elsewhere about where they are going.
I hope that the Minister will bear my points in mind and think again. If the amendments were agreed to, that would lead to greater recognition of the trade union movement and its democratic rights.

Mr. Page: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), I shall not delay the House with a one-hour speech. I found the speech of the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) interesting, and it was obviously supported by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey).
Those people who have responsibility for these matters have no idea how small business operates. They are in a dream world. In small businesses there are no management messages, metaphorically carved in stone, which are sent down from the boardroom to the deputy manager and to the foreman, to be put on the office notice board. Nor are such messages sent through the wage packet.
In a small business, the manager knows everyone by name. Management and staff work together, they know their problems and they know their individual requirements. The various figures and percentages that are presented in this part of the Bill will not be helpful for small businesses. Indeed, they could be damaging or harmful to them. As unemployment starts to climb, we all know that we shall need small businesses to create jobs for the future. I have to exhibit and state to the House my concern over this part of the Bill as it will affect small businesses.

Mr. Boswell: The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) and others have eloquently explained the ambiguities, inconsistencies and lack of principle in the Government's policies in this part of the Bill. It will be obvious to the House that amendment No. 9 would work in the opposite sense by taking one of the two ambiguous interpretations of the Labour party manifesto and requiring a higher hurdle rate. I would say that for that purpose it is defensible. We are seeing the imposition by statute of collective bargaining. If that is to happen, it should have the widest possible consent. It is for the Minister now to answer our observations.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I will be very brief because I appreciate the exigencies of the time. It is appropriate that I should speak in a debate in which the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and I find ourselves in a situation which goes back for many years when he was my boss and I worked with him as a teacher. We had different political viewpoints, but we are essentially in agreement on the very important issue of democracy.
I remind the House of early-day motion 291 of last year which was signed by 22 Labour Members. It rested on the concept of basic democracy, which is the basis of the

amendment. I hope that the 22 Labour Members might at least have the courage of their convictions, which they had when they signed the early-day motion, to join us in the Lobby in support of a basic principle.
I was involved in the 1979 referendum in Scotland. The 40 per cent. rule applied, and if someone did not turn out, it meant a no vote. That ridiculed the whole idea of democracy and the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) moved so eloquently are a challenge to the concept of basic democracy in this country.

Mr. Wills: All the amendments deal with recognition ballots, which is undoubtedly a very important issue. The Government are concerned to get it right. I regret that all the amendments are unhelpful and that some of them are more unhelpful than others. I am certainly not convinced that amendments Nos. 37 and 38. are in the best interests of good industrial relations. Amendment No. 37 would remove the requirement that at least 40 per cent. of workers in a bargaining unit must vote in favour of union recognition. We believe that 40 per cent. is the right figure, and I shall come back to that in relation to amendment No. 9.
The basic principle is that a significant proportion of workers must be in favour of recognition before it should be granted. That seems self-evident and deviating from that basic principle would run the risk of a vocal minority overriding the wishes of the vast majority of those affected. That would disrupt good industrial relations. The Government have no wish for that to happen and we cannot accept an amendment that runs such a risk.
For exactly the same reasons, we cannot accept amendment No. 38, which would remove the converse requirement that at least 40 per cent. of workers in the bargaining unit must vote against the continuation of recognition for it to end.
Amendment No. 9 would alter the figure for minimum support in a recognition ballot to 50 per cent. I have already explained the reasons for having a threshold. We have set a threshold of 40 per cent. Precisely where the level is set is a matter of judgment, and we have made our judgment on the basis that we believe that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, 40 per cent. plus a ballot majority will mean that 50 per cent. or more of the work force support recognition, or at least do not oppose it.
Why not set the threshold at 50 per cent? Because that would, in practice, mean that an even greater proportion of workers—perhaps 60 or 70 per cent.—would have to be in favour of recognition before it would be granted. That is a high hurdle, particularly when, we should remember, the union must also win a ballot. In those circumstances, we do not believe that the amendment would be conducive to good industrial relations—it is unnecessary and unhelpful. I hope that Opposition Members will withdraw all the amendments.

Mr. Welsh: I regret the Government's stance. The 40 per cent. rule has met widespread opposition and has, for example, been described by GMB Scotland in the following terms:
The fly in the ointment is the 40 per cent. rule. It's a pity the same commitment to giving workers rights as individuals is not extended to them when they group together in a union.


John Edmonds, the leader of the GMB has said that the 40 per cent. rule turned the White Paper into a "flawed jewel". The Scottish Trades Union Congress has said:
Our position is quite clear—there should be no additional hurdles erected. The only requirement should be that a majority of those in a workplace voting for trade union recognition should get it, and we will not accept anything less than that.
We share those sentiments and they would be delivered by the amendments.
I note not only the support of the trade unions. On 9 January 1999, 22 Labour and five Liberal Democrat Members supported an early-day motion on that issue, even though both parties will oppose the amendments. We intend to make the point by pressing this principle to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 1, Noes 301.

Division No. 139]
[9.28 pm


AYES


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Tellers for the Ayes:



Mr. Dennis Canavan and Mr. Andrew Welsh.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
(Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clelland, David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clwyd, Ann


Atherton, Ms Candy
Coaker, Vernon


Atkins, Charlotte
Coffey, Ms Ann


Austin, John
Cohen, Harry


Banks, Tony
Coleman, Iain


Barnes, Harry
Colman, Tony


Barron, Kevin
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beard, Nigel
Corbett, Robin


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Corbyn, Jeremy


Begg, Miss Anne
Cox, Tom


Beggs, Roy
Crausby, David


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Benton, Joe
Cryer, John (Homchurch)


Bermingham, Gerald
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Berry, Roger
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Best, Harold
Dalyell, Tarn


Betts, Clive
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Blackman, Liz
Darvill, Keith


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blizzard, Bob
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boateng, Paul
Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)


Borrow, David
Dawson, Hilton


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Denham, John


Bradshaw, Ben
Dismore, Andrew


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dobbin, Jim


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Donohoe, Brian H


Buck, Ms Karen
Doran, Frank


Burden, Richard
Dowd, Jim


Burgon, Colin
Drown, Ms Julia


Butler, Mrs Christine
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Efford, Clive


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ennis, Jeff


Cann, Jamie
Fisher, Mark


Caplin, Ivor
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Caton, Martin
Flint, Caroline


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Flynn, Paul


Clapham, Michael
Follett, Barbara


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Clark, Dr Lynda
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)





Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lock, David


Fyfe, Maria
Love, Andrew


Gapes, Mike
McAvoy, Thomas


Gardiner, Barry
McCabe, Steve


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gibson, Dr Ian
McIsaac, Shona


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Godman, Dr Norman A
Mackinlay, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
McNulty, Tony


Goggins, Paul
MacShane, Denis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mactaggart, Fiona


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McWilliam, John


Grocott, Bruce
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grogan, John
Mallaber, Judy


Hain, Peter
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marek, Dr John


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Martlew, Eric


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Maxton, John


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hepburn, Stephen
Merron, Gillian


Heppell, John
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hesford, Stephen
Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hill, Keith
Miller, Andrew


Hinchliffe, David
Mitchell, Austin


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Moffatt, Laura


Hoey, Kate
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hood, Jimmy
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Moriey, Elliot


Hope, Phil
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mountford, Kali


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Mullin, Chris


Hoyle, Lindsay
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Humble, Mrs Joan
Norris, Dan


Hurst, Alan
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hutton, John
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Hara, Eddie


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Olner, Bill


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jamieson, David
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jenkins, Brian
Palmer, Dr Nick


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pearson, Ian


Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)
Pendry, Tom



Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)
Plaskitt, James



Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Primarolo, Dawn


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prosser, Gwyn


Kemp, Fraser
Purchase, Ken


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Khabra, Piara S
Quinn, Lawrie


Kidney, David
Radice, Giles


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rapson, Syd


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Raynsford, Nick


Kingham, Ms Tess
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rooker, Jeff


Laxton, Bob
Rooney, Terry


Leslie, Christopher
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Levitt, Tom
Roy, Frank


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Ruane, Chris


Linton, Martin
Ruddock, Joan


Livingstone, Ken
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Salter, Martin






Sarwar, Mohammad
Todd, Mark


Savidge, Malcolm
Trickett, Jon


Sawfond, Phil
Truswell, Paul


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Shaw, Jonathan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sheerman, Barry
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Singh, Marsha
Vaz, Keith


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Ward, Ms Claire


Snape, Peter
Wareing, Robert N


Soley, Clive
Watts, David


Spellar, John
White, Brian


Squire, Ms Rachel
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)


Stevenson, George
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Wills, Michael


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Winnick, David


Stinchcombe, Paul
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wise, Audrey


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Woolas, Phil


Stringer, Graham
Wray, James


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)




Tellers for the Noes:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. David Hanson and Mrs. Anne McGuire.


Tipping, Paddy

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Byers: I beg to move amendment No. 152, in page 28, line 30, at end insert—
'(IA) In applying sub-paragraph (1) an agreement for recognition (the agreement in question) must be ignored if—

(a) the union does not have a certificate under section 6 that it is independent,
(b) at some time there was an agreement (the old agreement) between the employer and the union under which the union (whether alone or with other unions) was recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a group of workers which was the same or substantially the same as the group covered by the agreement in question, and
(c) the old agreement ceased to have effect in the period of three years ending with the date of the agreement in question.

(1B) It is for the CAC to decide whether one group of workers is the same or substantially the same as another, but in deciding the CAC may take account of the views of any person it believes has an interest in the matter.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 150. 151 and 153.

Mr. Byers: I commend the amendments. However, there is an issue that the Government want to consider further: where a staff association or a non-independent union has applied for a certificate of independence, whether the CAC should not consider any application for derecognition until the outcome of that process is known.
The Government want to give some thought to that issue. We have not arrived at any conclusions as to what our response should be. We will give it further thought and may return to that aspect during the House of Lords consideration of those matters.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the outstanding groups of Opposition amendments are not to be moved. I see that that is so.

Amendments made: No. 167, in page 29, line 12, at end insert—
'32A.—(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the CAC accepts for decision an application under paragraph 10 or 11 relating to a bargaining unit, and
(b) the CAC has not issued a declaration under paragraph 19(2), 25(3) or 25(4) in relation to that bargaining unit.

(2) Another application under paragraph 10 or 11 is not admissible if—

(a) at least one worker falling within the relevant bargaining unit also falls within the bargaining unit referred to in sub-paragraph (1), and
(b) the application is made by a union (or unions) other than the union (or unions) which made the application referred to in sub-paragraph (1).

(3) The relevant bargaining unit is—

(a) the proposed bargaining unit, where the application is under paragraph 10(2) or 11(2);
(b) the agreed bargaining unit, where the application is under paragraph 11(4).'


No. 168, in page 29, line 44, at end insert—
'Competing applications
35A.—(1) For the purposes of this paragraph—

(a) the original application is the application referred to in paragraph 32A(1), and
(b) the competing application is the other application referred to in paragraph 32A(2).

(2) This paragraph applies if—

(a) the CAC decides that the competing application is not admissible by reason of paragraph 32A,
(b) at the time the decision is made the parties to the original application have not agreed the appropriate bargaining unit under paragraph 15, and the CAC has not decided the appropriate bargaining unit under paragraph 16, in relation to the application, and
(c) the 10 per cent test (within the meaning given by paragraph 13) is satisfied with regard to the competing application.

(3) In such a case—

(a) the CAC must cancel the original application,
(b) the CAC must give notice to the parties to the application that it has been cancelled,
(c) no further steps are to be taken under this Part of this Schedule in relation to the application, and
(d) the application shall be treated as if it had never been admissible.'


No. 73, in page 30, line 22, leave out from beginning to 'the employer'.
No. 74, in page 30, line 24, at end insert —
'(lA) The application is not admissible unless—

(a) the condition in sub-paragraph (2) is satisfied, and
(b) one of the conditions in sub-paragraph (2A) is satisfied.'


No. 75, in page 30, line 28, at end insert—
'(2A) The conditions are that—

(a) the parties have not agreed a method by which they are to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of the bargaining unit;
(b) the parties have agreed such a method but have failed to carry out the agreement.'

No. 67, in page 30, leave out lines 34 and 35 and insert—
'(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(a), any worker employed by an associated company incorporated outside Great Britain must be ignored unless the day the application was made fell within a period during which he ordinarily worked in Great Britain.
(4A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b), any worker employed by an associated company incorporated outside Great Britain must be ignored in relation to a week unless the whole or any part of that week fell within a period during which he ordinarily worked in Great Britain.
(4B) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (4) and (4A), a worker who is employed on board a ship registered in the United Kingdom shall be treated as ordinarily working in Great Britain unless—

(a) the ship is registered at a port outside Great Britain,
(b) the employment is wholly outside Great Britain, or
(c) the worker is not ordinarily resident in Great Britain.'

No. 76, in page 30, line 36, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.

No. 77, in page 30, line 39, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.

No. 78, in page 30, line 43, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).

No. 79, in page 31, line 2, leave out
'references to the applicant are'
and insert
'the reference to the applicant is'.

No. 80, in page 31, line 4, leave out
'references to the other party are'
and insert
'the reference to the other party is'.

No. 81, in page 31, line 7, leave out from beginning to 'it' in line 16 and insert—
'(1) The CAC must give notice to the parties of receipt of an application under paragraph 38.
(2) Within the acceptance period the CAC must decide whether the application is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 38 and 39.
(3) In deciding whether an application is admissible the CAC must consider any evidence which it has been given by the employer or the union (or unions).
(4) If the CAC decides that the application is not admissible—

(a) the CAC must give notice of its decision to the parties,
(b) the CAC must not accept the application, and
(c) no further steps are to be taken under this Part of this Schedule.
(5) If the CAC decides that the application is admissible it must—

(a) accept the application, and
(b) give notice of the acceptance to the parties.
(6) The acceptance period is—

(a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day the CAC receives the application, or
(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.
40A.—(1) If the CAC accepts an application'.

No. 82, in page 31, line 37, leave out
'receives the application under paragraph 38'
and insert
'gives notice of acceptance of the application'.

No. 133, in page 32, line 36, leave out line 36 and insert
'An application under paragraph 44 is not admissible unless the CAC'.

No. 134, in page 32, line 46, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) and insert—

'45A.—(1) The CAC must give notice to the parties of receipt of an application under paragraph 44.
(2) Within the acceptance period the CAC must decide whether the application is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 45 and 65.
(3) In deciding whether the application is admissible the CAC must consider any evidence which it has been given by the employer or the union (or unions).
(4) If the CAC decides that the application is not admissible—

(a) the CAC must give notice of its decision to the parties,
(b) the CAC must not accept the application, and
(c) no further steps are to be taken under this Part of this Schedule.
(5) If the CAC decides that the application is admissible it must—

(a) accept the application, and
(b) give notice of the acceptance to the parties.
(6) The acceptance period is—

(a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day the CAC receives the application, or
(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.'

No. 135, in page 33, line 9, leave out
'under paragraph 45(3) of a decision to accept an'
and insert 'of acceptance of the'.

No. 136, in page 33, line 27, leave out 'under paragraph 45(3)' and insert
'of acceptance of the application'.

No. 137, in page 33, line 31, leave out
'under paragraph 45(3) of a decision to accept an'
and insert 'of acceptance of the'.

No. 138, in page 34, line 44, leave out '25' and insert `35'.

No. 139, in page 35, line 1, leave out 'This paragraph' and insert 'Paragraph 52A'.

No. 140, in page 35, line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (3).

No. 141, in page 35, line 25, leave out sub-paragraph
(5) and insert—

'52A.—(1) The CAC must give notice to the parties of receipt of an application under paragraph 52.
(2) Within the acceptance period the CAC must decide whether the application is admissible within the terms of paragraph 65.
(3) In deciding whether the application is admissible the CAC must consider any evidence which it has been given by the employer or the union (or unions).
(4) If the CAC decides that the application is not admissible—

(a) the CAC must give notice of its decision to the parties,
(b) the CAC must not accept the application, and
(c) no further steps are to be taken under this Part of this Schedule.


(5) If the CAC decides that the application is admissible it must—

(a) accept the application, and
(b) give notice of the acceptance to the parties.
(6) The acceptance period is—

(a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day the CAC receives the application, or
(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.'

No. 142, in page 35, line 30, at beginning insert—

'(A1) If the CAC accepts an application it—

(a) must give the employer and the union (or unions) an opportunity to put their views on the question or questions in relation to which the application was made;
(b) must decide the question or questions before the end of the decision period.'

No. 143, in page 35, line 49, at end insert—

'(4A) The decision period is—

(a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day the CAC gives notice of acceptance of the application, or
(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.'

No. 144, in page 38, line 47, leave out
'union shows (or unions show)'
and insert 'CAC is satisfied'.

No. 145, in page 39, line 32, leave out
'union does not show (or unions do not show)'
and insert 'CAC is not satisfied'.

No. 146, in page 40, line 23, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.

No. 147, in page 40, line 28, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.

No. 148, in page 40, line 32, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.

No. 149, in page 40, line 35, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) to (6).

No. 69, in page 41, line 44, leave out 'less' and insert 'fewer'.

No. 70, in page 42, line 2, leave out 'less' and insert 'fewer'.

No. 83, in page 42, line 6, leave out '25' and insert '35'.

No. 68, in page 42, leave out lines 18 and 19 and insert—
'(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b), any worker employed by an associated company incorporated outside Great Britain must be ignored in relation to a week unless the whole or any part of that week fell within a period during which he ordinarily worked in Great Britain.
(5A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (5), a worker who is employed on board a ship registered in the United Kingdom shall he treated as ordinarily working in Great Britain unless—

(a) the ship is registered at a port outside Great Britain,
(b) the employment is wholly outside Great Britain, or
(c) the worker is not ordinarily resident in Great Britain.'

No. 84, in page 42, line 23, leave out '(or unions) make' and insert 'makes (or unions make)'.

No. 85, in page 42, line 26, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.

No. 86, in page 42, line 29, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.

No. 87, in page 42, line 33, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) and (5).

No. 88, in page 42, leave out line 37 and insert—

'71A.—(1) The CAC must give notice to the parties of receipt of an application under paragraph 71.
(2) Within the acceptance period the CAC must decide whether the application is admissible within the terms of paragraph 71.
(3) In deciding whether an application is admissible the CAC must consider any evidence which it has been given by the employer or the union (or unions).
(4) If the CAC decides that the application is not admissible—

(a) the CAC must give notice of its decision to the parties,
(b) the CAC must not accept the application,
(c) no further steps are to be taken under this Part of this Schedule, and
(d) the bargaining arrangements shall cease to have effect on the date specified under paragraph 70(2)(d).
(5) If the CAC accepts an application it must give notice of the acceptance to the parties.
(6) The acceptance period is—

(a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day the CAC receives the application, or
(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.
71B.—(1) If the CAC accepts an application it-'

No. 89, in page 43, line 2, leave out 'receives' and insert
'gives notice of acceptance of.

No. 90, in page 43, line 12, leave out
', and if the request'
and insert—
'(1A) The request is not valid unless it'.

No. 91, in page 43, line 16, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).

No. 92, in page 44, line 12, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.

No. 93, in page 44, line 15, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.

No. 94, in page 44, line 19, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).

No. 95, in page 44, line 23, leave out from beginning to 'decides' in line 24 and insert
'An application under paragraph 74 or 75 is not admissible unless the CAC'.

No. 96, in page 44, line 27, leave out
'there is prima facie evidence that'.

No. 97, in page 44, line 30, leave out from 'must' to 'give' in line 31.

No. 98, in page 44, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—

'77A.—(1) The CAC must give notice to the parties of receipt of an application under paragraph 74 or 75.
(2) Within the acceptance period the CAC must decide whether—

(a) the request is valid within the terms of paragraph 72, and
(b) the application is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 76 and 77.


(3) In deciding those questions the CAC must consider any evidence which it has been given by the employer or the union (or unions).
(4) If the CAC decides that the request is not valid or the application is not admissible—

(a) the CAC must give notice of its decision to the parties,
(b) the CAC must not accept the application, and
(c) no further steps are to be taken under this Part of this Schedule.
(5) If the CAC decides that the request is valid and the application is admissible it must—

(a) accept the application, and
(b) give notice of the acceptance to the parties.
(6) The acceptance period is—

(a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day the CAC receives the application, or
(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.'

No. 99, in page 44, line 40, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

No. 100, in page 44, line 45, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.

No. 101, in page 45, line 1, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.

No. 102, in page 45, line 5, leave out sub-paragraphs (5) and (6).

No. 103, in page 45, line 12, leave out from beginning to 'decides' in line 13 and insert
'An application under paragraph 78 is not admissible unless the CAC'.

No. 104, in page 45, line 16, leave out
'there is prima facie evidence that'.

No. 105, in page 45, line 19, leave out from 'must' to 'give' in line 20.

No. 106, in page 45, line 21, leave out from beginning to 'the application' in line 24 and insert—

'79A.—(1) The CAC must give notice to the worker (or workers), the employer and the union (or unions) of receipt of an application under paragraph 78.
(2) Within the acceptance period the CAC must decide whether the application is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 78 and 79.
(3) In deciding whether the application is admissible the CAC must consider any evidence which it has been given by the employer, the union (or unions) or any of the workers falling within the bargaining unit.
(4) If the CAC decides that the application is not admissible—

(a) the CAC must give notice of its decision to the worker (or workers), the employer and the union (or unions),
(b) the CAC must not accept the application, and
(c) no further steps are to be taken under this Part of this Schedule.
(5) If the CAC decides that the application is admissible it must—

(a) accept the application, and
(b) give notice of the acceptance to the worker (or workers), the employer and the union (or unions).
(6) The acceptance period is—

(a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day the CAC receives the application, or
(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the worker (or workers), the employer and the union (or unions) by notice containing reasons for the extension.

79B. If the CAC accepts'.

No. 107, in page 45, line 30, leave out sub-paragraph (5).

No. 108, in page 45, line 36, leave out
'after the CAC decides to proceed with'
and insert
'the CAC gives notice of acceptance of'.

No. 109, in page 45, line 39, leave out 'parties' and insert
'worker (or workers), the employer and the union (or unions)'.

No. 110, in page 45, line 41, leave out from 'CAC' to end of line 42 and insert
'accepts an application under paragraph 74 or 75.'

No. 111, in page 45, line 44, leave out from 'CAC' to ',and' in line 45 and insert
'accepts an application under paragraph 78'.

No. 165, in page 49, line 17, at end insert—

'86A.—(1) This Part of this Schedule also applies if the CAC has issued a declaration under paragraph 62(2) that a union is (or unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a bargaining unit.
(2) In such a case references in this Part of this Schedule to the bargaining arrangements are to—

(a) the declaration, and
(b) paragraph 62(6)(b).'

No. 112, in page 49, line 23, leave out from beginning to 'the union' in line 24 and insert
'The employer may after the relevant date request'.

No. 113, in page 49, line 25, leave out
', and if the request'
and insert—
'(1A) The request is not valid unless it'.

No. 114, in page 49, line 31, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).

No. 115, in page 49, line 46, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.

No. 116, in page 50, line 2, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.

No. 117, in page 50, line 6, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).

No. 118, in page 50, line 10, leave out from beginning to 'is' in line 11 and insert
'An application to the CAC under paragraph 90 is not admissible unless the CAC'.

No. 119, in page 50, line 13, leave out from 'must' to 'give' in line 14.

No. 120, in page 50, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—

'92A.—(1) The CAC must give notice to the parties of receipt of an application under paragraph 90.
(2) Within the acceptance period the CAC must decide whether—

(a) the request is valid within the terms of paragraph 89, and
(b) the application is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 91 and 92.
(3) In deciding those questions the CAC must consider any evidence which it has been given by the parties.
(4) If the CAC decides that the request is not valid or the application is not admissible

(a) the CAC must give notice of its decision to the parties,


(b) the CAC must not accept the application, and
(c) no further steps are to be taken under this Part of this Schedule.
(5) If the CAC decides that the request is valid and the application is admissible it must—

(a) accept the application, and
(b) give notice of the acceptance to the parties.
(6) The acceptance period is—

(a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day the CAC receives the application, or
(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the parties by notice containing reasons for the extension.'

No. 121, in page 50, line 21, leave out from 'CAC' to '(as' in line 22 and insert
'accepts an application under paragraph 90.'

No. 150, in page 50, line 44, leave out paragraph 95.

No. 151, in page 51, line 8, leave out 'after the relevant date'.

No. 122, in page 51, line 10, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

No. 123, in page 51, line 15, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.

No. 124, in page 51, line 18, leave out 'invalid' and insert 'not admissible'.

No. 125, in page 51, line 22, leave out sub-paragraphs (5) and (6).

No. 126, in page 51, line 29, leave out from beginning to 'decides' in line 30 and insert
'An application under paragraph 98 is not admissible unless the CAC'.

No. 127, in page 51, line 35, leave out from 'must' to 'give' in line 36.

No. 128, in page 51, line 37, leave out from beginning to 'the application' in line 40 and insert—

'99A.—(1) The CAC must give notice to the worker (or workers), the employer and the union (or unions) of receipt of an application under paragraph 98.
(2) Within the acceptance period the CAC must decide whether the application is admissible within the terms of paragraphs 98 and 99.
(3) In deciding whether the application is admissible the CAC must consider any evidence which it has been given by the employer, the union (or unions) or any of the workers falling within the bargaining unit.
(4) If the CAC decides that the application is not admissible—

(a) the CAC must give notice of its decision to the worker (or workers), the employer and the union (or unions),
(b) the CAC must not accept the application, and
(c) no further steps are to be taken under this Part of this Schedule.
(5) If the CAC decides that the application is admissible it must—

(a) accept the application, and
(b) give notice of the acceptance to the worker (or workers), the employer and the union (or unions).

(6) The acceptance period is—

(a) the period of 10 working days starting with the day the CAC receives the application, or
(b) such longer period (so starting) as the CAC may specify to the worker (or workers), the employer and the union (or unions) by notice containing reasons for the extension.
99B. If the CAC accepts'.

No. 129, in page 51, line 46, leave out sub-paragraph (5).

No. 130, in page 52, line 4, leave out
'after the CAC decides to proceed with'
and insert
'the CAC gives notice of acceptance of'.

No. 131, in page 52, line 7, leave out 'parties' and insert
'worker (or workers), the employer and the union (or unions)'.

No. 132, in page 52, line 10, leave out from 'CAC' to ', and' in line 11 and insert
'accepts an application under paragraph 98'.

No. 153, in page 52, line 18, at end insert—

Derecognition: other cases

100A.—(1) This paragraph applies if as a result of a declaration by the CAC another union is (or other unions are) recognised as entitled to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a group of workers at least one of whom falls within the bargaining unit.
(2) The CAC must issue a declaration that the bargaining arrangements are to cease to have effect on a date specified by the CAC in the declaration.
(3) If a declaration is issued under sub-paragraph (2) the bargaining arrangements shall cease to have effect accordingly.
(4) It is for the CAC to decide whether a group of workers is the same or substantially the same as the bargaining unit, but in deciding the CAC may take account of the views of any person it believes has an interest in the matter.'

No. 169, in page 52, line 28, leave out 'Part I of'.

No. 170, in page 52, line 30, leave out 'Part I of.

No. 171, in page 52, line 31, leave out
'of bargaining arrangements under Part IV, V or VI of this Schedule'
and insert
'under this Schedule of bargaining arrangements'.

No. 172, in page 52, line 33, leave out
'of bargaining arrangements under Part IV, V or VI of this Schedule'
and insert
'under this Schedule of bargaining arrangements'.

No. 173, in page 54, line 17, leave out 'Part I of'.

No. 174, in page 54, line 19, leave out 'Part I of'.

No. 175, in page 54, line 20, leave out
'of bargaining arrangements under Part IV, V or VI of this Schedule'
and insert
'under this Schedule of bargaining arrangements'.

No. 176, in page 54, line 22, leave out
'of bargaining arrangements under Part IV, V or VI of this Schedule'
and insert
'under this Schedule of bargaining arrangements'.—[Mr. Pope.]

Schedule 5

THE CERTIFICATION OFFICER

Amendments made: No. 154, in page 71, line 49, leave out from 'shall' to second 'the' in line 50 and insert'—

(a) make such enquiries as he thinks fit, and
(b) give the applicant and the trade union an opportunity to be heard.
(2AA) Where'.

No. 155, in page 72, line 13, at end insert—
'(3A) Where the Certification Officer requests a person to furnish information to him in connection with enquiries made by him under this section, he shall specify the date by which that information is to be furnished and, unless he considers that it would be inappropriate to do so, shall proceed with his determination of the application notwithstanding that the information has not been furnished to him by the specified date.'

No. 156, in page 72, line 25, at end insert—
'(1A) In subsection (2) (Certification Officer's powers and duties) insert before paragraph (a)—
(aa) shall make such enquiries as he thinks fit,".

No. 157, in page 73, line 6, at end insert—
'(6A) Where the Certification Officer requests a person to furnish information to him in connection with enquiries made by him under this section, he shall specify the date by which that information is to be furnished and, unless he considers that it would be inappropriate to do so, shall proceed with his determination of the application notwithstanding that the information has not been furnished to him by the specified date.'

No. 164, in page 73, line 15, leave out 'this Chapter' and insert
'section 25, 31 or 45C'.

No. 158, in page 75, line 11, at end insert—
'(5A) Where the Certification Officer requests a person to furnish information to him in connection with enquiries made by him under this section, he shall specify the date by which that information is to be furnished and, unless he considers that it would be inappropriate to do so, shall proceed with his determination of the application notwithstanding that the information has not been furnished to him by the specified date.'

No. 159, in page 76, line 44, at end insert—

'Political fund

16A.—(1) Section 82 (rules as to political fund) shall be amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
"(2A) On a complaint being made to him the Certification Officer shall make such enquiries as he thinks fit."
(3) After subsection (3) insert—
"(3A) Where the Certification Officer requests a person to furnish information to him in connection with enquiries made by him under this section, he shall specify the date by which that information is to be furnished and, unless he considers that it would be inappropriate to do so, shall proceed with his determination of the application notwithstanding that the information has not been furnished to him by the specified date." '

No. 160, in page 76, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 47 and insert—
'Section 103 (complaints about procedure relating to amalgamation or transfer of engagements) shall be amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (2) insert—
(2A) On a complaint being made to him the Certification Officer shall make such enquiries as he thinks fit.

(3) After subsection (5) insert—

(5A) Where the Certification Officer requests a person to furnish information to him in connection with enquiries made by him under this section, he shall specify the date by which that information is to be furnished and, unless he considers that it would be inappropriate to do so, shall proceed with his determination of the application notwithstanding that the information has not been furnished to him by the specified date.'

No. 60, in page 77, line 15, leave out '(5)' and insert '(5A)'.

No. 62, in page 77, line 24, leave out 'conference or other body' and insert 'decision-making meeting'.

No. 61, in page 77, line 33, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(5) An application must be made—

(a) within the period of six months starting with the day on which the breach or threatened breach is alleged to have taken place, or
(b) if within that period any internal complaints procedure of the union is invoked to resolve the claim, within the period of six months starting with the earlier of the days specified in subsection (5A).

(5A) Those days are—

(a) the day on which the procedure is concluded, and
(b) the last day of the period of one year beginning with the day on which the procedure is invoked.'

No. 63, in page 78, line 1, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
'(8) For the purposes of subsection (2)(d) a committee is an executive committee if—

(a) it is a committee of the union concerned and has power to make executive decisions on behalf of the union or on behalf of a constituent body,
(b) it is a committee of a major constituent body and has power to make executive decisions on behalf of that body, or
(c) it is a sub-committee of a committee falling within paragraph (a) or (b).
(8A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(d) a decision-making meeting is—

(a) a meeting of members of the union concerned (or the representatives of such members) which has power to make a decision on any matter which, under the rules of the union, is final as regards the union or which, under the rules of the union or a constituent body, is final as regards that body, or
(b) a meeting of members of a major constituent body (or the representatives of such members) which has power to make a decision on any matter which, under the rules of the union or the body, is final as regards that body.
(8B) For the purposes of subsections (8) and (8A), in relation to the trade union concerned—

(a) a constituent body is any body which forms part of the union, including a branch, group, section or region;
(b) a major constituent body is such a body which has more than 1,000 members.'

No. 161, in page 78, line 35, at end insert—
'(aa) shall make such enquiries as he thinks fit,'.

No. 162, in page 79, line 3, at end insert—
'(4A) Where the Certification Officer requests a person to furnish information to him in connection with enquiries made by him under this section, he shall specify the date by which that information is to be furnished and, unless he considers that it would be inappropriate to do so, shall proceed with his determination of the application notwithstanding that the information has not been furnished to him by the specified date.'

No. 163, in page 79, line 47, leave out '(6)' and insert '(2A) and (5A)'.—[Mr. Pope.]

Schedule 6

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 52, in page 80, line 16, at end insert—

'A1. BALLOTS AND NOTICES


Chapter
Short title
Extent of repeal


1992 c. 52.
Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
In section 226(2) the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) Section 227(2). In section 234A(7)(a) the words "otherwise than to enable the union to comply with a court order or an undertaking given to a court".'.

No. 64, in page 81, leave out lines 27 and 28.

No. 56, in page 82, leave out lines 13 and 14.

No. 65, in page 85, line 23, at end insert—

'9. COMPENSATORY AWARD: REMOVAL OF LIMIT IN CERTAIN CASES


Chapter
Short title
Extent of repeal


1996 c. 18
Employment Rights Act 1996
In section 112(4), the words "or in accordance with regulations under section 127B".




In section 117(2) and (3), the words "and to regulations under section 127B".




In section 118(1), the words "Subject to regulations under section 127B,". Section 127B.


1998 c. 23.
Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.
Section 8. Section 18(4)(b).'


—[Mr. Pope.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Byers: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It is an historic occasion. I am delighted that I will joined shortly by the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who has been absent from illness.
The Bill establishes and fosters a new culture in the workplace, removing the outdated notion of conflict between employers and employees with a sense of new partnership—a partnership of rights matched by responsibilities. It will address the fundamental imbalance in the workplace that we inherited from the Conservative party.
Now more than ever, we need to foster a new culture in the workplace. The world is dramatically changing and the workplace has changed with it. More people are working part-time and on temporary contracts. More women than ever are working. More families depend on two earners. Those new working patterns put new responsibilities on Government, business and employees.
We want people to be partners in change, not the victims of that change. That places a responsibility on Government to ensure minimum standards of fairness and treatment for all in society and in the workplace. That places a responsibility on business to ensure that the task of making a reality of the flexible labour market does not fall solely and exclusively on working people, and a responsibility on employees to demonstrate loyalty and commitment to their employer.
The Bill will do three things: it will promote family-friendly policies; promote a new culture of partnership in the workplace; and ensure equal and fair treatment for all in the workplace, regardless of whether they work full or part-time, for a single employer, or through an agency. Those are all sensible and achievable goals. It is a matter of great regret that the Opposition will not support them.
We are just a little over two hours away from the introduction for the first time in this country of a national minimum wage, which will benefit 2 million of our fellow citizens by taking them out of poverty pay, and ensuring that they will not be exploited. Two million people will benefit from the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, but even more people will benefit from the Employment Relations Bill.
About 135,000 mothers will benefit from our improved maternity provisions. The 1 million people who work through employment agencies will have greater protection. Some 3.3 million people will benefit from our parental leave proposals. More than 6.5 million part-timers will be protected from discrimination.
The Government are acting for all our people, not just a privileged few. The Bill will play an important part in modernising our country, creating a better Britain and a more modern and fair society in which all the people will have rights coupled with responsibilities. The Bill discharges our responsibility by ensuring that we meet our manifesto commitment. We are a Government who deliver on our promises.
The Employment Relations Bill begins a new era in industrial relations, an era based on partnership and on putting aside the divisions and disagreements of the past. It is a new beginning for industrial relations that will benefit millions of our fellow citizens. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Boswell: In rising to oppose the Bill on the Opposition's behalf, may I agree with the Secretary of State on one matter by expressing our pleasure at the fact that the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry is shortly to return from his indisposition. We are pleased that he is able to be with us again.
Now, let me resume normal hostilities by saying that what we have just heard from the Secretary of State was, even from him, a disappointing concatenation of soundbites. The Secretary of State claimed as a credit to himself the imminent introduction of the national minimum wage, but he simultaneously omitted to mention the propensity of both that and of the Employment Relations Bill to destroy jobs by increasing the costs of business. The Government have taken no adequate account of that fact. For all their honeyed words and all their alleged readiness to consult, they are bent on doing damage to British business by imposing costs on it.
The conduct of the Bill has been remarkable. Two reordering motions were required, one on the very first day of consideration. Four major schedules have been tabled during the Bill's proceedings. Consultation and regulations were issued in pre-draft form 90 minutes before we considered them. That does not suggest that the Government understand much of the business about which they lecture real business people.
The Bill will impose statutory collective bargaining. Last time that was done, six short clauses damaged British industry and proved to be unworkable. This time, there are 27 long pages of a schedule, which will damage British industry and which will prove unworkable.
The Bill introduces, for the first time, parts of the European social chapter, which have not yet been fully discussed. The Government have gold plated some of the obligations that they have voluntarily undertaken, adding further to those obligations in ways that will increase costs on British business. The pattern of their policies—including the family-friendly policies—is to put burdens on to business and to reduce competitiveness while increasing costs.
Some loose ends will be left over. The Confederation of British Industry has expressed general concern about the Bill, but has gone along with it. Concerns remain about the importance of asserting the voluntary principle, the best by which to conduct industrial relations. Concerns remain about disciplinary and grievance hearings and about definitions in the Bill, some of which we have been able to explore and others of which we have had no time to explore.
The Bill is an extraordinary confection. There is little in the clauses, more in the schedules, and most of all has lain in the soundbites. Today, the Government are ringing their bells and making their claims, but, in the years to come, British industry will pay the bills and suffer the damage of a Bill which we are pleased to oppose.

Mr. Chidgey: It falls to me, in the three remaining minutes of the debate, to have almost the last word on the Bill. I should like to reinforce what Liberal Democrat Members have been saying from the outset—that we have always supported the principles of fair and free industrial and employment relations. I should like also to sum up the past several weeks of our consideration of the Bill.
The Bill's provisions may be divided into three categories: on individual rights, on collective rights and on family-friendly policies. Despite our long debates and Committee sittings, the Bill's provisions—particularly in the first category, on individual rights—still do not provide the clarity that we should have liked. The problem of discrimination—on the basis of age, and of sexual orientation—is outstanding. We are still not satisfied that the Government have properly addressed the issue.
The Government's proposals on collective rights have left us wondering how they decided on the 40 per cent. threshold. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State and other Ministers would give us some further guidance on how they reached that conclusion, so that the wider community—the many whom they claim to represent—might be able to understand it.
We have concerns also about the Bill's proposals on family-friendly policies. Although we appreciate and welcome the introduction of European Community

directives on family-friendly policies, we still do not understand why it was necessary for the Government to indulge in what can only be called the gold-plating of specific matters. We are particularly concerned about how the Government dealt in the Bill with leave for urgent family reasons. We feel that much more could have been done to make the provision simple, clear and efficient in operation.
This is an "enabling Bill". Time and again in Committee, we were told by Ministers that, "The detail will come later. We have not finished consulting. In fact, we are continually consulting." I thought that Governments were elected to legislate, but perhaps I have it wrong. We still have to wait. Time and again, massive Government amendments were tabled but with no time to study or analyse them, or to share in the Secretary of State's ambition—which he expressed again today—of improving the Bill.
We are left with an enabling Bill, and still await the regulations. The doubts that I have been expressing are about exactly how those regulations will work. On the Bills and Acts that the Secretary of State has trumpeted today—such as the National Minimum Wage Act 1998—to make them work, the Government have had to think again, to change their mind and to introduce new strictures and regulations. Will the same happen with this Bill after it becomes an Act of Parliament?
When the regulations are tabled, I look forward to examining them forensically, although—because of the way in which this place works—we shall have little time to do so. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government are listening, and that they will do their best to make the Bill work—not only for the many, but for those who employ the many.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 328, Noes 124.

Division No. 140]
[9.52 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Ainger, Nick
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bradshaw, Ben


Allen, Graham
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Buck, Ms Karen


Atherton, Ms Candy
Burden, Richard


Atkins, Charlotte
Burgon, Colin


Austin, John
Butler, Mrs Christine


Banks, Tony
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Beard, Nigel



Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Begg, Miss Anne
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Beggs, Roy
Canavan, Dennis


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Cann, Jamie


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Caplin, Ivor


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Caton, Martin


Benton, Joe
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Chidgey, David


Berry, Roger
Clapham, Michael


Best, Harold
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Betts, Clive
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Blackman, Liz



Blears, Ms Hazel
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Blizzard, Bob
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Borrow, David
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)






Clelland, David
Hesford, Stephen


Clwyd, Ann
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Coaker, Vernon
Hill, Keith


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Cohen, Harry
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Coleman, Iain
Hoey, Kate


Colman, Tony
Hood, Jimmy


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hope, Phil


Corbett, Robin
Hopkins, Kelvin


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Crausby, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hurst, Alan


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hutton, John


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Iddon, Dr Brian


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Darvill, Keith
Jamieson, David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jenkins, Brian


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)



Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Barry (Alyn &Deeside)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Denham, John
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Dismore, Andrew



Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dowd, Jim
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Drown, Ms Julia
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Edwards, Huw
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Efford, Clive
Kemp, Fraser


Ennis, Jeff
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Etherington, Bill
Khabra, Piara S


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Kidney, David


Fearn, Ronnie
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fisher, Mark
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kingham, Ms Tess


Flint, Caroline
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Flynn, Paul
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Follett, Barbara
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Foulkes, George
Linton, Martin


Fyfe, Maria
Livingstone, Ken


Gapes, Mike
Livsey, Richard


Gardiner, Barry
Lock, David


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Love, Andrew


Gibson, Dr Ian
McAllion, John


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McAvoy, Thomas


Godman, Dr Norman A
McCabe, Steve


Godsiff, Roger
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Goggins, Paul
McDonagh, Siobhain


Golding, Mrs Llin
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Grocott, Bruce
Mackinlay, Andrew


Grogan, John
McNulty, Tony


Hain, Peter
MacShane, Denis


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McWalter, Tony


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McWilliam, John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Healey, John
Mallaber, Judy


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Marek, Dr John


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hepburn, Stephen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Heppell, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)





Martlew, Eric
Sawford, Phil


Maxton, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Shaw, Jonathan


Merron, Gillian
Sheerman, Barry


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Shipley, Ms Debra


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Miller, Andrew
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mitchell, Austin
Singh, Marsha


Moffatt, Laura
Skinner, Dennis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Morley, Elliot
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Snape, Peter


Mountford, Kali
Soley, Clive


Mullin, Chris
Spellar, John


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Squire, Ms Rachel


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Steinberg, Gerry


Norris, Dan
Stevenson, George


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


O'Hara, Eddie
Stinchcombe, Paul


Olner, Bill
Stoate, Dr Howard


Öpik, Lembit
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Organ, Mrs Diana
Stringer, Graham


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Palmer, Dr Nick
Stunell, Andrew


Pearson, Ian
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Perham, Ms Linda



Pickthall, Colin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pike, Peter L
Tipping, Paddy


Plaskitt, James
Todd, Mark


Pollard, Kerry
Trickett, Jon


Pond, Chris
Truswell, Paul


Pope, Greg
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Turner, Dr Desmond (kemptown)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Turner,Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Twigg Derek (Halton)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Vaz, Keith


Primarolo, Dawn
Vis, Dr Rudi


Prosser, Gwyn
Walley, Ms Joan


Purchase, Ken
Ward, Ms Claire


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Wareing, Robert N


Quinn, Lawrie
Watts, David


Radice, Giles
Welsh, Andrew


Rapson, Syd
White, Brian


Raynsford, Nick
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)




Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wills, Michael


Rooker, Jeff
Winnick, David


Rooney, Terry
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wise, Audrey


Roy, Frank
Woolas, Phil


Ruane, Chris
Worthington, Tony


Ruddock, Joan
Wray, James


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Salter, Martin



Sanders, Adrian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sarwar, Mohammad
Mr. David Hanson and


Savidge, Malcolm
Mrs. Anne McGuire.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Boswell, Tim


Amess, David
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Brady, Graham


Baldry, Tony
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Bercow, John
Browning, Mrs Angela


Beresford, Sir Paul
Burns, Simon


Blunt, Crispin
Butterfill, John






Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew



McLoughlin, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Malins, Humfrey


Clappison, James
Maples, John


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Colvin, Michael
May, Mrs Theresa


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Moss, Malcolm


Cran, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Curry, Rt Hon David
Norman, Archie


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Ottaway, Richard


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Page, Richard


Duncan Smith, Iain
Paice, James


Evans, Nigel
Pickles, Eric


Faber, David
Prior, David


Fabricant, Michael
Randall, John


Fallon, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Flight, Howard
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fox, Dr Liam
Ruffley, David


Gale, Roger
St Aubyn, Nick


Garnier, Edward
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gibb, Nick
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gill, Christopher
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Soames, Nicholas


Gray, James
Spicer, Sir Michael


Green, Damian
Spring, Richard


Greenway, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Grieve, Dominic
Streeter, Gary


Hague, Rt Hon William
Swayne, Desmond


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Syms, Robert


Hawkins, Nick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Hayes, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Horam, John
Townend, John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Trend, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Tyrie, Andrew


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Viggers, Peter


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Walter, Robert


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wardle, Charles



Wells, Bowen


Key, Robert
Whitney, Sir Raymond


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Whittingdale, John


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Wilkinson, John


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Willetts, David


Lansley, Andrew
Wilshire, David


Leigh, Edward
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Letwin, Oliver
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lidington, David
Woodward, Shaun


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Yeo, Tim


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Loughton, Tim



Luff, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Mr. Tim Collins and


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Kosovo

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Just a week ago, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister told the House that, in the face of rising violence against civilians in Kosovo, our armed forces and those of our NATO allies were involved in combat operations on the continent of Europe. That evening, Harrier aircraft of the Royal Air Force delivered the first of their attacks on military targets in Yugoslavia.
A week has now passed and the House has had regular reports. I gave evidence to the Defence Committee on 24 March. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I opened and closed the full day's debate on 25 March, and the Prime Minister briefed the House yesterday. On Monday, when I visited RAF personnel at Gioia del Colle air base in southern Italy, I was accompanied by the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), and the Liberal Democrat foreign and defence spokesman, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). I am sure, however, that hon. Members would expect me to provide an account of the latest position before the House rises for Easter, and by doing so at this time I can be as up to date as possible.
Some things have become clearer with the passage of these seven days. First, we were absolutely right to act when and in the way that we did. Anyone still unconvinced about the need to act should listen to the voices of the Kosovar Albanians themselves because they are making it absolutely clear that they welcome NATO action, and see it as their only salvation. Yesterday, at the press conference at the Foreign Office, one of the representatives of the Kosovar Albanians in London said:
the people of Kosovo are fully in accord with NATO action and rather than claiming that NATO brought destruction to them, they only hope and desperately ask for an increase in NATO activity".
The second point that has come out is that the violence being perpetrated against the Kosovar Albanians has been in preparation for some time. There is a clear pattern of organisation behind these atrocities. It is not just murder; it is premeditated murder. What we are witnessing is nothing less than a systematic campaign of destruction against a whole people just because they are from a different ethnic group.
To those who try to argue that the ethnic cleansing started after NATO's air strikes began, I say go and speak to the people of Poljance, Cigala, Lausa, Devicha Suma and the other towns and villages in Kosovo where Milosevic's thugs wreaked havoc before a single NATO bomb was dropped.
The international community can, and it will, take steps to bring those who planned this violence—Milosevic and his military commanders—to account. We know who they are, where they live, and what they are doing now. We are watching them, and there will be no hiding place. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have both made clear, information about the involvement of individuals in atrocities will be provided to the International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague. I am glad to report that Judge Louise Arbour has now issued an indictment against the man known as Arkan for war crimes in Bosnia.
NATO has now decided to increase the intensity of the air effort. Yesterday evening, following discussions in the North Atlantic Council, NATO confirmed its resolve to intensify and broaden still further the air strikes against Milosevic and his thugs who are repressing the Albanian population in Kosovo. We do not do so lightly. Last night's decision, however, gives Milosevic a very clear signal of our collective intent.
Yesterday, I gave my agreement to the stationing of five United States B-1 bombers at RAF Fairford, in addition to the 13 B-52s that are already there. These aircraft will add considerably to NATO's ability to strike at military targets supporting the killings in Kosovo.
Since the beginning of the campaign, NATO aircraft have done considerable damage to the Serb war machine. To date, they have made around 100 attacks, against more than 70 sites. NATO planes have seriously damaged the potential effectiveness of the Yugoslav air force. Four Mig 29s—the Serbs' most modern and capable fighters—and one Mig 21 have been shot down. Overall, these losses represent around half of their best operational and serviceable fighters. In addition, in attacks on eight airfields, at least seven aircraft and one helicopter have been destroyed on the ground. It is possible that others have also been destroyed.
Attacks by NATO aircraft have also substantially reduced the Yugoslav air defence systems. Eighteen surface-to-air missile sites and 16 radar and early warning sites have been attacked, as have 12 of the other 15 air defence facilities. These attacks have been so effective that the Serbs have been forced to move their remaining missile systems in order to protect them. While there still remains a threat to our aircraft, it is clear that good progress has been made.
NATO has heavily targeted headquarters and other static facilities. The headquarters of the MUP—the Ministry of the Interior police—and the headquarters of the Yugoslav army have been attacked. So have a range of support buildings containing stores of ammunition and other military stores. Those attacks will reduce the ability of the commanders to direct troops on the ground. It will also reduce the ability of troops to sustain their operations.
Royal Air Force Harriers have been in action since the first day of the campaign. On the night of 25–26 March, they attacked explosive ammunition storage buildings within a military barracks at Leskovac. Two of the three targets were successfully destroyed. On the night of 28–29 March, aircraft attacked an ammunition storage site in Pristina which stored ammunition for the Interior Ministry police. Three targets were destroyed.
Harrier aircraft were active on a number of other occasions, but, for various reasons, including poor weather and fire and smoke, they did not press home the attacks. It is our policy, and that of our allies, that aircraft should launch their weapons only when they are as confident as they can be that they will hit the target accurately, without causing unnecessary collateral damage or putting civilian lives at risk. Milosevic may randomly kill, but we operate to higher standards.
This pressure is having an effect. Milosevic is clearly rattled, as his so-called offer of last night demonstrates. If he really thought that the international community would entertain this worthless proposal, he knows now that it was just his latest miscalculation.
First, he miscalculated our intention to attack if he kept on killing. Then he miscalculated over alliance resolve and determination, which is now stronger than it was seven days ago. Last night, he miscalculated again. Milosevic's offer is simply this—NATO stops bombing and he only slows down the killing. He has not offered a ceasefire. He has not offered to reduce troop numbers in Kosovo to the levels that he himself promised in October last year. He has not offered guarantees of safety to returning refugees. He has simply offered to take out a few of the 40,000 troops if we stop the bombing and take off the pressure. This was not a peace move. It was a panic move.
So let me remind the House what Milosevic must do to stop the bombing. There must be an immediate and permanent halt to the killings, and, to show that he means it, there must be a verified withdrawal of Serb troops. He must sign up to a political settlement, including an international guarantee force which permits the refugees and displaced persons to return safely to their homes.
Of course huge damage has already been done. Lives have been ruined, villages destroyed, communities expelled. The British Government are heavily involved in supporting the efforts that are going on to tackle the developing humanitarian crisis. On Tuesday, and to the House today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development described the Government's contribution to the international efforts to assist with the huge refugee crisis. I can confirm tonight that the first RAF Hercules carrying badly needed blankets, tents and plastic sheeting left Prestwick airport at 8 o'clock this evening, and is expected to arrive in Skopje in Macedonia at approximately 2 o'clock tomorrow morning.
Today, on our continent of Europe, the most horrific crimes against humanity are being perpetrated. They must not be forgotten; they must not go unpunished; and most of all they must not continue. NATO forces are determined to stop this grisly process and to ensure that those who have started it do not profit from it.
Mr. Milosevic is not addressing his own Parliament tonight. I imagine he would be deeply ashamed to do so. He is huddled in his bunker, calculating how he can possibly extricate himself from his predicament. It is time for him and his military commanders to think again. If it helps to make up their minds, I can tell them this. NATO's military action is going to strengthen, it will continue, and it will be increasingly painful. We are not going away before the violence stops and the people of Kosovo can go home and live in peace.

Mr. John Maples: In last week's debate on Kosovo, I think that we were all agreed that in President Milosevic, we are dealing with a very evil man. If anyone had any lingering doubts about that, they must have been dispelled by what we have read in our newspapers and by the truly tragic scenes that we have seen on television over the past few days of refugees evicted from their homes, sleeping in the open and having to flee for their lives. We welcome the aid that the Government are helping to organise and the role of the RAF that the Secretary of State has described. We continue to support the Government in their efforts to resolve this crisis and bring an end to the atrocities.
During the past few days, the Secretary of State has set out some objectives for the military campaign. I want to ask him some questions about two of them. One objective


was to do very serious damage to Serbia's military capabilities and another was to stop the atrocities in Kosovo. The Secretary of State has reported considerable progress in achieving the first objective. He tells us that many of the SAM—surface-to-air-missile—sites and planes have been destroyed. Will he confirm that quite a bit of Serb air defence capability is still intact? Serb troops still have missile sites and can operate hand-held, shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles that are a particular danger to low-flying aircraft in the daytime.
There has been some success in that matter, but there has not been success in the second objective of stopping the atrocities. The atrocities plainly and brutally continue and the bombing appears to be having little effect on the ground. The Secretary of State has told us that he is convinced that the matter can be resolved by air power alone. Will he tell us whether there are any plans to alter the nature of the air campaign to achieve that? The problem seems to be that although sophisticated bombing techniques are very good at taking out large military installations, they are not much use in attacking individual trucks, tanks or the groups of soldiers perpetrating the atrocities in Kosovo. He has told us that there are additional B-1 bombers at Fairford and that they will help. I understand that there are also American JSTARS—joint surveillance target attack radar system—and A-10s in the area. Does he think that those new military assets will help NATO forces to restrict Serb ground forces and prevent them from committing atrocities in Kosovo?
I think that I am correct in saying that there were eight and there are now 12 RAF Harriers and about 240 people in Italy, plus tankers. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether there are plans to deploy any more UK air forces in the region? Will the NATO force in Macedonia—the potential peacekeeping force—be brought up to the planned 28,000 from its present strength of about 14,000?
The use of ground troops to fight their way into Kosovo has been ruled out by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence and by the President of the United States. Can the Secretary of State confirm that there has been no alteration to that policy? Has he seen the announcement by the Russian Defence Minister that seven ships of the Russian Black sea fleet, including missile-carrying and anti-submarine frigates, are leaving their Black sea port to—in the Defence Minister's words—
monitor the conflict in Kosovo".
Those troops will have to pass through the Bosporus and I understand that that requires Turkish permission. Has NATO been consulted on that matter and does the Secretary of State believe that it presents an additional threat?
Today, the Prime Minister set a new objective for the military mission—that the test of success is for the Kosovars to be able to return home. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether that rules out not only any outcome that involves leaving Kosovo in Serb hands, but any partition of Kosovo? In last week's debate, we asked the Secretary of State whether the Government had a longer-term strategy for achieving Balkan stability. We express the hope that there is one. I should be grateful if the Government would address that question and if the Secretary of State would share his thinking with us, if not tonight at some other time.
I hope that the Secretary of State is right—that President Milosevic is rattled and that he is huddled in his bunker—but I fear that this is all going to be more difficult and will take much longer than the Government seem to think. I am sure that the whole House is thinking of our armed services in the theatre, especially those who are in danger. We wish them good fortune, great success and a speedy homecoming.

Mr. Robertson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's final comment. The whole House sends its good wishes and thoughts to those who are close to the conflict and those who, at this moment, may be in the line of danger, and he is right to speak out in that way.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, although a lot of his questions are interesting, the answers would provide considerable information, not only to him and the House, but to those who might well be ranged against our forces now and in succeeding days. Therefore, in being reticent on certain subjects, I am not being discourteous to him or the House, but being sensibly prudent. I have given more information tonight than I have ever given before to the House of Commons so that it knows, as it goes into the Easter recess, what has been done.
I believe that most hon. Members recognise how much has yet to be achieved. There is no instant overnight knock-out blow that can be delivered. Some defence manufacturers might say that this bit of kit or that bit of kit is ideal in the circumstances, but modern conflict is not some sort of arcade game, in which you press a button and the enemy disappears. The fact is that we are up against somebody who is ruthless, merciless and unprincipled. He is engaged in systematic operations inside a tiny part of our continent and we have to stand against him. That will involve risks for many people in the area-—for the population who have been driven from their homes, and for our armed forces and those of the other 18 countries of NATO. We must recognise that.
We have been successful in the air campaign so far. Of course, the problems with weather create complications. They would not create complications for Milosevic, because, to him, bombing through the clouds—bombing blind—using dumb bombs would be a simple exercise, without any scruples attached to it. It is different for us and it will remain different for us. We are not in the business of creating civilian casualties, but interested only in precision attacks on military installations.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the forces currently present in Macedonia, ready to be part of an implementation force if, as we all hope, a peace agreement comes about. There are currently some 14,000 NATO troops there, and that is the number that the force will remain at until we are ready to move to the implementation stage of an agreement. We all send our good wishes to them. I hope that, in the next few days, some of them will be engaged in helping with the refugee crisis.
There is no change to the view that we have taken on ground troops. The decision was taken by NATO—by the NATO military authorities: 19 chiefs of defence and the Ministers who supervise their decisions. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the announcement by Marshal Sergeyev, the Russian Defence Minister, about sending a


certain number of the Black sea fleet through the Bosporus. The Bosporus is an international waterway and access cannot be prevented. The Russian ships are on the high seas and it remains to be seen what they will do, but they have the freedom of the seas, just as we have.
We have made clear our objectives in political terms: a situation that will allow the refugees to go back, and to rebuild their communities and their lives. That will necessitate having an international peacekeeping force to allow it to happen. Milosevic is not going to get away with ethnically cleansing that part of the former Yugoslavia and then claiming that it is partitioned for ever.
The hon. Gentleman states the obvious, but it is worth stating that this action is going to be long and difficult. We took it on knowing that it was important to do and the right thing to do, and that the only alternative was to stand back and wring our hands, as people were slaughtered, murdered and driven out of the country that they believed to be their home. Yes, it is risky—nobody in this House will face those risks—but the hon. Gentleman, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife and I met some of the people who will be taking those risks: they expect us to do the right thing, and that is what we will do.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I thank the Secretary of State for the opportunity to accompany him on Monday and meet some of those who are accepting in a matter-of-fact way risks that we here can only guess at.
Is the truth not this: that it is time now for steadiness and a calm determination to see these events through to the end? Does the Secretary of State understand that there is widespread support in the House for the summary rejection of the empty and cynical gesture made by Mr. Milosevic yesterday? Does he understand also that there is, if anything, even greater support for the robust reminder given today that those who are complicit at any level—military or political—in the hideous barbarity that is being enacted in Kosovo may pay for it by facing the war crimes tribunal?
As a condition for the cessation of bombing, the Secretary of State outlined the need for Mr. Milosevic to accept the deployment of troops on the ground. If Mr. Milosevic refuses to consent to that, he surely cannot, by withholding consent, exercise a veto over the deployment of troops on the ground if NATO considers that that is appropriate.

Mr. Robertson: I appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words of thanks about the visit on Monday. The visit was conducted not in our interests, but in the interests of serving RAF personnel, who appreciated the fact that the defence spokesmen from the three principal political parties had taken the time and the trouble to meet them and to learn what was happening. We all came away with nothing short of huge admiration for the skill, commitment, ability and sheer bravery of those who are flying the Harriers, and who will, from tomorrow, fly the Tornadoes from RAF Bruggen.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to highlight the risks involved, but he is also right to underline the determination that NATO expressed last

night—and which we share—to ensure that the job is done. If this job is not done and if this sort of ethnic cleansing were to become the norm against which we could not stand, I, for one, would despair for the future of the continent for succeeding generations. Although last night's agreement was a crack in the wall of obstinacy that Slobodan Milosevic has erected and behind which he does his killing, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that it was no real offer and was a great disappointment to the Russians. It was insulting to Mr. Primakov, who had to deliver the message.
We are absolutely committed on the war crimes issue. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have made it clear that we will publicise some of the information that we have about some of those who have committed war crimes as a warning to others who may be tempted to obey the orders of ethnic warfare. I hope that the open indictment of Arkan will end the television interviews that he seems able to give with impunity. Someone who is indicted for war crimes should be returned to The Hague, not given star billing on television or in the newspapers.
An international force must be sent to that country because I do not believe the refugees will go back without it. That is why those parts of the Rambouillet agreement that relate to an international force remain so important.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on the regular reports to Parliament since last Thursday, which have proved to be a model for our allies in their parliamentary relations. My right hon. Friend said that we had provided evidence to Judge Louise Arbour, the chief prosecutor at the International War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague, in respect of President Milosevic. It is clear that President Milosevic is guilty of ethnic cleansing on an horrific scale. He has broken every agreement that he has reached with NATO and with other allies. In those circumstances, we must recognise that he cannot be part of the solution.

Mr. Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about the reports to Parliament. It is the principle behind what we do, and it is right that we keep the House informed and on side. I know that not all hon. Members agree 100 per cent. with what the Front-Bench spokesmen are saying. There is unease and anxiety, and that is shared equally by those who are in charge of the military. However, we must do what is right and what is necessary.
My hon. Friend made a point about Judge Arbour and the international criminal tribunal. It will be for Judge Arbour to decide whether an indictment is arraigned against any individual. It is not for any politician to decide who should be the subject of indictment. The process is fair and judicial. When the indictments are served, it will be up to the rest of the international community to deliver on them.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that the political track is kept running in tandem with the military track? Does he further agree that if anyone should have much more influence on the Serbs, it is the Russians? Will he confirm that the Foreign Secretary will continue to


impress on the Russians that, if they want to be taken seriously in international affairs, they need quickly to achieve their aim with the Serbs?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is right on the first point. We must keep the political track running because only a political settlement will return peace and stability to that troubled part of the world. He is right to say that the Russians also have a stake in that. Out-of-control ethnic warfare in the Balkans is a danger to stability that is much closer to Russia than it is to those on the other side of the Atlantic, although NATO has accepted that challenge.
I am sure that the Russians were deeply unhappy with the offer that Milosevic made, which they took to Bonn last night. After all, they signed up to UN Security Council resolution 1199, which called for an end to the violence, withdrawal of the troops and a political settlement. I hope that they will continue to use what influence they have to try to tell that man that he must think again.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Why does the Defence Secretary think that Belgrade families, the intelligentsia, trade unionists and others, 200,000 of whom demonstrated two years ago against President Milosevic, are this week demonstrating in similar numbers in favour of him? Can a people such as the Serbs be bombed into submission?

Mr. Robertson: The people of Serbia are, by and large, decent people with a fine tradition. If they knew, or were allowed to know, what their Government are doing in their name, they would not countenance it for a moment. They are being lied to, so perhaps it is not difficult to understand why they are demonstrating in the streets. We have no contest with them at all. No bombs are falling on them; bombs fall only on the military installations and apparatus that keep the terror going. I hope that if my hon. Friend has the chance to get that message across, he will do so.
To those who might be listening in Yugoslavia, I say that there are internet sites that are difficult for the secret police to get hold of. Yesterday, 1,400 people hit the Ministry of Defence and Foreign Office websites. They are trying to find out the truth; if they do, they will not support Milosevic for very long.

Mr. Martin Bell: As someone who knows a little about the realities on the ground, I wonder whether the Secretary of State will consider, if not full military intervention, at least the establishment, by force if necessary, of a relief corridor or safe area to save the lives of some of the tens of thousands of Albanians in Kosovo which, without such action, will surely be lost.

Mr. Robertson: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the area, but I have studied, along with the military commanders in the area, some of the possibilities to which he alluded. We shall continue to examine what we can do to help relieve the refugees, without ruling out those options. However, we should not delude ourselves that the time that it would take to put together a ground force organised for forced entry into Kosovo would not be exploited by Slobodan Milosevic in the bloodiest

possible way. Instead of seeking the simple solutions, we must continue down a difficult road that the majority of military commanders still believe will produce results.

Mr. David Winnick: Does the Secretary of State agree that to blame NATO for the latest crimes and atrocities being carried out by the Serbian warlords makes as much sense as blaming the Allies for Nazi crimes in the last war? Is it not perfectly clear—as it should be to critics, in the House or outside—that the full responsibility for the mass murders, rapes and atrocities lies entirely with the dictator in Belgrade and his fellow murderous thugs?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I get angry, with some justification, I think, at people suggesting that NATO air attacks started the violence that Milosevic was meting out to his people. Night after night on television, the Kosovar Albanian refugees themselves give ample testimony to the fact that the violence started before the NATO bombs began to fall, and that only the NATO air attacks are likely to stop them.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Can the Secretary of State for Defence name a single independent commentator who believes that NATO's military strategy will deliver the political objectives laid out by the Prime Minister to the House last Tuesday? If he cannot, will he undertake urgent consultations with our NATO partners to change the military strategy so that we can have the expectation, not just the hope, that we will deliver the political objectives that we all share?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman was in the Army some time ago. I say to him in all reasonableness that he may have a point of view, but I am not concerned with independent commentators. There are military commanders in this country with experience, a Chief of the Defence Staff with one of the most outstanding records of service in the British Army, who is now at the head of all of our defences, and 18 other chiefs of defence in NATO who all came to the same conclusion. Their political masters have also agreed that this is the correct strategy. We do not lean on them, but their advice is quite clear. Frankly, if it came to a choice, I would trust them rather than the average, so-called independent commentator.

Mr. John Austin: The whole House owes a debt of gratitude to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary for the political skill that has enabled them to ensure a unified international response to the atrocities that have been perpetrated by the Milosevic regime.
Last night, the Grand Committee Room was filled with Kosovars who live in London, many of them with families still in Kosovo, and some of whom do not know where their families are. I assure my right hon. Friend that they not only gave their full and absolute backing to the action that has been taken, but said that now is not the time for hesitation or pulling back from that action. I would add only one reservation. While accepting the view of the 19 defence chiefs that the use of ground troops at this stage may not be practicable, there was some concern that that had been announced to the world in advance—that may be one of the problems of living in a democracy.
Does my right hon. Friend share my view that, by his actions, Milosevic has forfeited any right or claim that he may have had to sovereignty over Kosovo, and that the time has come for the international community to consider making Kosovo an international protectorate?

Mr. Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words of commendation for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and me. We are doing our best, but I cannot say that this is the easiest or least troubled period of our political lives. It is made all the more difficult by the complexities of the situation, or perhaps by the normality that has been the Balkans in recent years. We are doing what we believe to be right, and we are doing, as my hon. Friend says, in the words of the Kosovar Albanians, what is vital and necessary, there being no alternative.
I take what my hon. Friend says about ground troops, but there are those who say that without considering the implications: the time that it would take to assemble such forces, where those forces, properly trained and equipped, would come from, or how they are to fight their way into the country which surrounds Kosovo, and which has a unique topography. Those were the reasons that were pretty obvious to our military commanders and probably to President Milosevic as well. In a democracy, we are right not to hide those facts from the people or to raise false expectations of what can be done by that kind of military power. That is why we took the route that we did. I still hope and believe that it will produce results.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has described what is happening in Kosovo as premeditated murder, and I agree with him. In response to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), he made it plain that he regards President Milosevic as the principal instigator of the premeditated murder, and I agree with that, too. Given that, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is his policy? Is it to make an agreement with President Milosevic or to arraign him as a war criminal?

Mr. Robertson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a Queen's Counsel. It is not for me to arraign anybody on a charge of war criminality. It is a fact that is not known or appreciated by very many people that there is an International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. There is a prosecutor, and it is for that prosecutor and nobody else to assess the evidence and to make the decision about indictments. I have no doubt that she will consider all the evidence of what is happening today and the evidence that is being provided daily by refugees and by Governments, and come to a conclusion.

Mr. Andrew Miller: In parallel with the increased intensity of NATO activity, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is also increased intensity of activity in trying to communicate the truth to the people of Serbia? He has mentioned the use of the internet site, and obviously we can strengthen our radio communication. Will my right hon. Friend look for alternative ways of strengthening our message? It is

important that people throughout Serbia understand the strength of determination of the House and of the NATO allies.

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We are spending a lot of time examining how best we can get the truth through to Serbia. Serbia is not Iraq, distant from other countries. It is in the heart of Europe and the footprints of satellites and other communication systems should not leave it isolated from information. The internet is one way in which people inside the country can get information. Only this week, the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence websites started to publish in Serbian, so we will get information to people directly in that way. The World Service performs its usual admirable task in relaying the news in an unbiased way and unaffected by propaganda. As my hon. Friend rightly recommends, we will continue with our efforts to ensure that the truth gets through. Milosevic keeps telling lies, we will keep telling the truth.

Mr. John Randall: Earlier today, we heard a welcome statement from the Secretary of State for International Development about a package of aid for refugees coming out of Kosovo, including, I think, aid for Montenegro. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that if we are giving aid to Montenegro, we shall not be bombing it any further?

Mr. Robertson: Where Montenegro is part of the integrated air defence system of the former Yugoslavia, clearly we are driven to certain conclusions if we are to ensure that allied planes will be safe. Much more serious than that are the reports that appear to be coming out of Montenegro about the position of President Djukanovic, and the threats to him and to his position by Milosevic sitting in Belgrade. We treat those reports with the utmost seriousness. I would warn Mr. Milosevic—sitting in his bunker—that he would be ill advised to tamper with the democratically elected Government of Montenegro.

Mr. Alan Williams: If we reach the stage, as the whole House prays that we will, where the insertion of an international peacekeeping force becomes a real possibility, and if the only stumbling block is the composition of that force, would my right hon. Friend be willing to be open minded on the composition, as long as its effectiveness could be guaranteed?

Mr. Robertson: We have always thought that an international implementation force could include troops from beyond the immediate membership of NATO. The Stabilisation Force in Bosnia includes troops from Russia, Ukraine and a number of other non-NATO countries, so I would hope and expect that an implementation force in Kosovo would have a similar broad composition.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Is it not sadly obvious that the right hon. Gentleman's statement makes no practical sense, even in purely humanitarian terms, unless NATO intends to send in a large army—which the experts estimate would have to be about 200,000 men—to occupy Kosovo and hold it thereafter? As he has ruled that out completely, and bearing in mind the experience, which the world saw, of the French in Indo-China and Algeria, and the Americans in Vietnam,


does he accept that, even if we were able to occupy Kosovo, we would be committed to years and years of guerrilla warfare, in terrain that lends itself to that sort of attack, among a violently hostile people who have been resisting foreign occupation for 2,000 years?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that if we cannot put together a force of 200,000, we do nothing, stand back and watch people being slaughtered. That is not a view that I take; nor is it the view of my military commanders. Although he has been around for a long time, and has been a Member of this House for even longer than I have, if it comes to his advice or the advice of the Chief of the Defence Staff, I do not have much trouble deciding which to take.

Mr. Alan Simpson: In all the horror of killing and ethnic cleansing that is Kosovo, the Secretary of State will be aware of growing disquiet about whether bombing, and bombing alone, can deliver any of the objectives that he set out to the House. Will he give the House an assurance that if he were to be persuaded by the growing speculation that the presence of ground troops is the only way to make military progress, he would not act before the House reconvened and was told, in precise terms, the basis of a plan for such involvement, its limitations and its objectives and terms?

Mr. Robertson: We are engaged at the moment in air assaults on military targets in Kosovo, which we believe are succeeding and which are already damaging the military capability that is repressing the Kosovar Albanians. We are confident that that will produce a result. I point out to my hon. Friend that, last night, President Milosevic gave an offer—it may have been spurious or worthless, but it was an offer none the less—to the Russians to carry to the European Union and to the international community. We are having an effect on what is his behaviour pattern at the moment. It is not enough at present, but the pressure will increase with every day.
My hon. Friend talks of disquiet. Of course there is disquiet about air strikes, which are one military mechanism that can be used. They are being used at the moment, but if anybody can come along and tell us a more sensible, more practical and better alternative that will quickly stop the carnage that is going on in Kosovo, let him do so. I have not heard one that is plausible.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State and I are contemporaries. We grew up believing that we would never see ethnic cleansing ever again in Europe. That was an aspiration. All of us share the anger at the behaviour of Milosevic and we all extend our support to the troops who are there in the front line, and to the various organisations, including the Department for International Development, which are working so hard to bring humanitarian aid to the refugees. The refugees make all of us deeply concerned about what is happening because we seem to be experiencing almost virtual reality as we watch the news broadcasts.
How will the Secretary of State respond to the letter, which I know that he received today, from Action of Churches Together in Scotland, which is united and deeply concerned about the fact that observers had been pulled out of the area? It is also worried about how the UN will be involved in future developments. Our deepest

concern is to protect all the unprotected Balkan civilians. Will he respond to that letter from the churches in Scotland?

Mr. Robertson: I have not yet received a letter from Action of Churches Together in Scotland, although I saw some reference to it in some of the Scottish media today. I will address it as quickly as I can. I understand the anxieties of the churches. However, an anxiety about taking out the verifiers is not well founded. The verifiers told us of the build-up of forces, and they warned the international community that the violence was escalating and was soon to become systemic. I think that I will be able to persuade them on that matter.
I do not know whether the hon. Lady goes along with the views of the national convener of her party; I can only doubt it. She represents a constituency with one of the biggest RAF bases in the country, and I do not think that she could subscribe to the sickening views of her party leader the other night. On the very day that our pilots were flying into danger and planning their operations in Kosovo to stop the ethnic cleansing that the hon. Lady quite rightly says that she and I are united against, her party leader told the people of Scotland that the answer was economic sanctions.
I do not think that the hon. Lady, or any other sensible person, believes that stopping the bombing and imposing economic sanctions at this time would stop the carnage. If she does not believe that, I hope that, in the interests of her constituents and the RAF personnel in her constituency, she will speak out and denounce the crazy views of her party leader.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Governments of Ukraine and Azerbaijan are insistent that they maintain a continuing strong and supportive relationship with NATO? Will he confirm that, despite the rebuke of Russian rhetoric and the reprimands from the Duma, the Russian Foreign Secretary Igor Ivanov is insistent that phase 2 of the strategic arms reduction talks be signed without delay? Will he assure the House that, unless the Milosevic Government accept unconditionally, and implement fully, the terms as proposed at Rambouillet, no gesture of abatement will be considered until phase 2 of the NATO mission has been fully prosecuted, so as to eradicate the large-calibre weapons and heavy armour assets that have wrought this inhumane havoc and to ensure that no repetition can be conducted on a similar scale of callousness?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend speaks with authority, as a vice-president of the North Atlantic Assembly, and we listen carefully to him. He mentioned the role of Ukraine. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Foreign Minister of Ukraine yesterday, and the Minister had been in Belgrade to give a strong message. My right hon. Friend is in regular contact also with Foreign Minister Ivanov of the Russian Federation. There is no interest for any of them in allowing Milosevic to get away with what he is doing. It is a danger not just for the Balkans, but for the wider area that would be affected; ourselves to the west, and Russia and Ukraine to the east. I hope that that is a message which they will put powerfully to Milosevic in Belgrade.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I thank the Secretary of State for the detailed statement that he


has given to the House this evening? He has provided as much information as it is appropriate to give, and I know that the House and the people of this country are grateful for that.
May I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames)? It is clearly appropriate for military action to be intensified against Mr. Milosevic, the Serbian army and the Serbian police, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to intensify the political negotiation involving Russia, Ukraine and other countries referred to tonight?

Mr. Robertson: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has pointed out to me that the Russians were extremely disappointed that, after six hours of discussion in Belgrade, this was all that Milosevic was willing to offer. As one who is not in the Foreign Office, I can vouch for how much my right hon. Friend has done in the past few weeks—for the hours that he has put in, the commitment that he has displayed, and his passionate search for an agreement that would avoid the bloodshed and any further violence that might prove necessary. He and the French Foreign Minister, Hubert Vedrine, deserve a vote of thanks. I do not think that they will look for it until we have a settlement, but no one is working harder than they are to achieve it.

Mr.Jeremy Corbyn: Everyone must be well aware of the horrors of what is happening in Kosovo, and of the dreadful treatment of ordinary people there by the Serbian forces as a result of Milosevic's orders.
I was disappointed that my right hon. Friend's statement made no reference to the United Nations, or to any effort to persuade the UN to introduce a monitoring force with the possibility of a ceasefire. What urgent efforts will be made to contact the UN, to bring in Kofi Annan and to bring about a ceasefire, protect refugees and secure a long-term settlement guaranteeing the autonomy of Kosovo? Many people believe that the bombing campaign will not resolve the problem, and will land us with a long-term disaster.

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend has a long record of campaigning against tyrants. Perhaps he will tell us how he would deal with this particular tyrant: we should all be interested to hear his practical proposals.
As for what my hon. Friend said about the United Nations, it was the UN Security Council which passed resolution 1199 last October, with the support of the Russians. That resolution called for an end to the disproportionate violence, called for the troops to be pulled out of Kosovo, and said that there should be a political agreement that all other parties should sign. It was the UN Security Council which, last week, considered a resolution from the Russians condemning the NATO action. That resolution was defeated by 12 votes to three, the biggest defeat of a resolution since 1993. It is the United Nations which is involved in the humanitarian emergency, and in delivering supplies that will help the victims of Milosevic's aggression.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Does the Secretary of State agree that, while it is vital for the NATO summit

scheduled for next month to proceed, there might be some merit in postponing any decision on NATO's new strategic concept—as it is described—until the lessons of the Kosovo operation have been learned?

Mr. Robertson: I have reached the opposite conclusion. I think that there is all the more reason for us to press ahead with a new strategic concept that takes into account the new rules that NATO is being expected to observe.
The hon. Gentleman is, however, right to refer to the 50th anniversary of NATO that is to take place in three weeks or so. NATO is in action now, and its organisation has kept together 19 allies. Without NATO, the Kosovar Albanians would be at the mercy of an unprincipled and unscrupulous butcher. NATO is our proving ground, and I believe that it will prove itself for the next 50 years as a result of what happens in the next few weeks.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation)

CIVIL AVIATION

That the draft Carriage by Air Acts (Implementation of Protocol No. 4 of Montreal, 1975) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.
That the draft Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) (Fifth Amendment) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Nuclear Waste

Ms Jackie Lawrence: I wish to present a petition with about 20,000 signatures collected by people living in the area of the village of Trecwn in my constituency. The petition expresses total opposition to efforts by Omega Pacific Ltd. to promote the former Royal Naval Armaments Department Trecwn site for the storage of intermediate and low-level nuclear waste. The site is in an environmentally sensitive area adjacent to the Pembrokeshire Coast national park. It is in close proximity to Skomer marine nature reserve and the Pembrokeshire Islands special area of conservation. In addition, proposals would create economic blight in an already depressed local economy when opportunity is offered through objective 1 status.
The petition asks the House of Commons to urge the Government to recognise the environmental and ecological importance of Pembrokeshire, and
to 'call-in' any planning applications and reject any such proposals to store nuclear waste or any other toxic substances at Trecwn.

To lie upon the Table.

Cystic fibrosis

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Mike Hall.]

11 pm

Mr. Archie Norman: I am glad, even at this late, have a chance to raise the cause of cystic fibrosis sufferers. I am grateful, too, to the Minister for remaining here late to hear what I have to say.
Cystic fibrosis is a serious genetic disease. It is the United Kingdom's most common life-threatening inherited disease. It causes great suffering throughout life and is, in most cases, the eventual cause of death for sufferers. One in 25 of the UK population is a carrier of the CF gene, and one in 2,500 babies is afflicted with the disease.
Cystic fibrosis used to be a children's disease. In 1968, when the prescription charge exemption list was first developed, adult cystic fibrosis was virtually unknown because of the simple fact that the children did not survive long enough to last into adulthood; they died in childhood. Now, as a result of advances in medical research and the improvement in palliative care, many sufferers are surviving into adulthood. Therefore, the question of prescription charge exemption is relevant.
I have a personal interest in the matter because my father, Dr. Archie Norman, devoted much of his working life to research into cystic fibrosis and the care of CF patients. He tells me that few of his former patients live on even into their 50s. Dr. Wallis of Great Ormond Street hospital for children estimates that, today, the average life expectancy of a new-born CF baby is 30 years.
Therefore, the time has come to reassess eligibility of CF sufferers for prescription exemption. That issue has been clearly identified by the Labour party as a serious issue and was set out as an explicit commitment in "Health 2000", which was published in February 1994 by the Labour party. It says:
we will undertake a thorough review of all ancillary charges. This will include an overhaul of prescription charges. We will seek to provide free medication as part of on-going treatment or long term requirements. For example, those suffering from cystic fibrosis who reach adulthood should not have to rely on some other category such as diabetes in order to obtain free prescriptions".
That commitment was clear cut and unambiguous. The Minister will also be aware of the early-day motion that was tabled last November, which was signed by 120 hon. Members, 75 of whom were Labour Members, including the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe).
Today, the Prime Minister reaffirmed that commitment when, in answer to my question, he stated:
I am well aware of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention. We shall carry out all our commitments in 'Health 2000'.
Those are fine words and noble sentiments. Regrettably, however, to date—and it is nearly two years—we have heard little from Ministers regarding any specific intention to act.
Despite that clear and reaffirmed commitment, despite the hope and belief that it gave to many CF sufferers who voted at the general election, after nearly two years we have had no announcement of any time scale. I ask the

Minister to give a clear indication of the position and to come clean as to when, not whether, the pledge will be delivered.
In particular, will the Minister clarify a statement made by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who, when he was Minister of State at the Department of Health, wrote to the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, in November 1998, saying:
the list of medical conditions conferring prescription charge exemptions was introduced in 1968 after being discussed with the medical profession"—
we knew that—
and no clear consensus for extending it has since emerged"?
That statement seems completely blind to the consensus that has indeed emerged on CF. The right hon. Gentleman seems also to have been unaware of the Labour party's commitment on the subject.
There is widespread support for exemption for cystic fibrosis sufferers. It may be that other conditions are good candidates for exemption, but are more contentious. It seems absurd, however, to penalise CF sufferers because other cases may be more doubtful.
The British Medical Association agrees that the current system is widely seen by the public as unfair. The BMA supports exemption for CF sufferers. Dr. George Rae, chairman of its general practitioner prescribing committee, has said:
it is unfair that a person with diabetes can pay absolutely nothing for medication when they are otherwise young and healthy, while a person with CF or chronic obstructive airway disease can end up paying for all their drugs
In March 1999, the BMA also stated that
there are many unacceptable inequalities and anomalies in the present system. Those with cystic fibrosis are more disadvantaged than some of those presently exempt. There is no doubt that applying the original criteria"—
the 1968 criteria—
for prescription charge exemptions…CF would qualify now that sufferers are living into adulthood.
The National Association of Community Health Councils has endorsed that view, and Rosie Barnes, a former Member of Parliament as well as being chief executive of the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, has said:
We believe that all adults with cystic fibrosis should be exempt from prescription charges on the grounds that they have a chronic medical condition which requires continuous essential medication
The financial problems facing many CF sufferers as they grow into adulthood, and their families, are acute. Living costs are higher as a result of the condition, and not just because of medicines. Sufferers have a continual requirement for medication throughout their lives. Life as a CF sufferer from birth is a struggle to stay alive and to stay healthy.
I have spoken to many CF sufferers about the extent of the medication that they require just to stay alive. Rachel Lawrence, a working barrister who has CF, and the daughter of Sir Ivan Lawrence, the former hon. and learned Member for Burton, said:
there have always been fistfuls of drugs. Enzyme replacements, antibiotics, which I can never stop taking, to ensure that my lungs don't get infected…Periodically, the pills don't work and I have to go to hospital to have the drugs intravenously".
She must also take vitamins and other supplements, and she has insulin four times a day.
Mark Barron, a constituent from Tunbridge Wells, also suffers from CF. He says:
It is so unfair that I have to pay for drugs that keep me alive: especially when people with other chronic medical conditions do qualify for free prescriptions. It is a tax on living longer".
In addition, CF sufferers face other living costs that are naturally high. They need a high-calorie diet, which means that they cannot rely on normal junk food. Their life support costs are greater than for normal individuals, because it is essential that their homes are kept very warm and dry. Often, they cannot use public transport. They need oxygen on flights if they travel by air. They need a nebuliser, but, unfortunately, those provided by the national health service are not portable. For any kind of independence, they must pay £300 plus maintenance for their own portable nebuliser.
The cost of suffering from CF is therefore very great. A modest estimate for an adult would be in excess, above normal living costs, of £1,000 a year.

Dr. Ian Gibson: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is asking for an exemption for just 1,000 people or even fewer?

Mr. Norman: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. His expertise on this matter is a benefit to the House. We are indeed considering a population of about 1,000 adults who suffer from CF and who are in work. The total population of adult sufferers is believed to be about 2,500, and I shall explain later the cost to the Exchequer of free prescriptions, which would be small.
It is believed that, despite the great suffering caused by CF, about 1,000 of the 2,500 people with CF are in work. In many cases—almost by definition—that work is part-time or relatively lowly paid, and it is flexible to allow for the particularly acute periods of periodic suffering.
It is vital to CF patients that they are able to stay in work, not least for their own self-esteem. Many CF sufferers show remarkable resilience, and, from early childhood, learn to live with continuous suffering and hospital visits, usually in the knowledge that the disease will get them in the end. Those patients have displayed remarkable courage, and they deserve our support.
I should like to read out an excerpt from a short, but moving, letter. It states:
John was, perhaps, the most courageous person I have ever known. Ours was a friendship borne out of adversity because, for almost the entire time I knew him, he was lying in bed. John's great strength was that he paid so little attention to his own weakness…he showed no sign of anger, no trace of bitterness, but touched us all with an aura of optimism and hope for the future, such as I have never before encountered".
The letter was written by Diana, Princess of Wales, after one of her many visits to the Royal Brompton hospital, in London. She was a full supporter of the Cystic Fibrosis Trust and its work.
Most cystic fibrosis sufferers, like John, end up in hospital, dying as a consequence of the disease. Meanwhile, ever more of them are struggling to support themselves, to lead a normal life and to eke out a living. It is vital that we provide CF sufferers with the support

that they need to work, rather than encouraging them to fall back on benefit to be able to pay for their health care costs.
I fully appreciate that the Minister will not want to make an unlimited extension of prescription charge exemption, because of the cost implications of doing so. However, the cost of exemption for CF sufferers is small, and it is affordable. There are only a very few adult CF sufferers, and, regrettably, they still do not live for very long. As most of them are paying an £85 annual prescription charge, the estimated cost of extending the exemption could be about £100,000 a year—perhaps as little as 0.03 per cent. of total prescription income. It seems a small price to pay for fair treatment for some of the most vulnerable and courageous people in our society.
The Government have made a clear commitment, which the Prime Minister has reaffirmed. The cause is a just and a fair one. The commitment is also a matter of public trust, as a commitment on it was made, as a pledge, throughout the general election. The Government have a moral obligation to act, and not to prevaricate.
There is no need for further reviews. It is a small item to the Exchequer, but a big item for the many courageous and deserving CF sufferers who pin their hopes on the words of the Prime Minister, and who now expect that word to be honoured.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on his success in the ballot, on raising some very important issues in the debate, and also on the way in which he has addressed them.
As the hon. Gentleman said, cystic fibrosis is the commonest genetic disease found in Caucasian people. Approximately one in 2,500 children are affected by the condition, which is a disorder of the mucus-secreting glands of the lungs, the pancreas, the mouth, the gastro-intestinal tract and the sweat glands of the skin.
Soon after birth, babies may have bowel obstruction due to thick bowel contents. They develop repeated chest infections because of sticky bronchial secretions, and do not absorb food normally because of a lack of normal pancreatic secretions. The symptoms are, among other things, a failure to gain weight despite a good appetite and repeated attacks of bronchitis. We know that between 10 and 30 per cent. of people with cystic fibrosis also develop diabetes mellitus because of complications with the pancreas.
These days, management of cystic fibrosis is often done largely at home, and specialist nurses are of value in supervising treatment—which consists of regular physiotherapy and postural drainage, antibiotics and the taking of pancreatic tablets and vitamins. It has become more common for acute exacerbation of infections to be treated by intravenous antibiotics at home, rather than by admission to hospital. That is particularly true because of the spread of pseudomonas cepacia within cystic fibrosis units.
It is heartening to see that, with significant improvements in the care and services for people with cystic fibrosis, 75 per cent. of today's sufferers survive into adult life. Two decades ago, only 12 per cent.


of affected children survived into adolescence. We continue to work closely with health professionals, the Cystic Fibrosis Trust and all those with an interest to continue to look for ways to improve the care of people with cystic fibrosis and their quality of life.
I am aware of the progress that has been made in the study of gene replacement therapy, and I know that the Cystic Fibrosis Trust is hopeful that a cure for the condition can be found within the next decade or so. Trials are now in progress at the Royal Brompton National Heart and Lung hospital to test the introduction of the gene into the nasal mucosa of patients.
In another area of work, the national screening committee chaired by the chief medical officer, which includes health care professionals and media and consumer representatives, is looking at screening programmes throughout the United Kingdom. The criteria against which the committee is assessing programmes include good evidence of the effectiveness of the screening programme; whether the condition can be effectively treated; and whether quality assurance mechanisms have been developed. The national screening committee is approaching national programmes systematically and offering advice in the light of commissioned research. The committee has established an expert sub-group to review child health issues.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Denham: I shall take only one intervention, at least until I have been able to address the issues raised by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, who secured the debate.

Mr. Stunell: I wanted to draw the Minister's attention to early-day motion 500, which calls in particular for those screening tests to be conducted nationwide. I hope that he will take that point on board.

Mr. Denham: As I was saying—this is relevant to the hon. Gentleman's point—the national screening committee has established an expert sub-group to review child health issues. That sub-group is currently waiting for the health technology assessment report on cystic fibrosis screening to be published, so that it can consider the effectiveness of screening for this condition in the light of emerging evidence. We expect the national screening committee to report to Ministers later this year.
When we were in opposition, we promised a review of prescription charges, and we have undertaken that review. The current prescription charge exemption arrangements and all other aspects of Government spending were reviewed as part of the recent comprehensive spending review, which reported to Parliament in July last year.
The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells mentioned the document "Health 2000", which was published by the Labour party. It was a consultation document, which suggested that if people were receiving free medication as part of on-going treatment or long-term requirements, they should not automatically receive all other medications free of charge. When we looked at that issue as part of our review of prescription charges, we concluded that it would be difficult to charge some people for medication that they currently receive free. We also

concluded that the proposal would impose an onerous burden on doctors, who would have to decide whether any particular prescription item would be charged for or free. We noted that there was no consensus on what additional conditions might be included in any revised list of medical exemptions, or how distinctions could be drawn between one condition and another.
For all those reasons, we concluded that all current prescription charge exemptions would be protected for the rest of this Parliament. We also decided that prescription charges would rise by no more than the rate of inflation over the next three years.
It is clear from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he is aware that the list of conditions conferring entitlement to free prescriptions was drawn up in 1968. The list, which excluded cystic fibrosis, was agreed following discussions between officials of the then Ministry of Health and representatives of the medical profession.
I appreciate that, due to clinical development, many cystic fibrosis sufferers are now living longer and fuller lives. Sadly, that was not the case in 1968. For that reason, some, including the hon. Gentleman, have argued that sufferers should now receive free prescriptions. However, many groups consider that they, too, should receive free prescriptions, and it would not have been right to consider one group in isolation. That had to be taken into account in our review.
In 1968, when medical exemptions were first introduced, only 42 per cent. of all NHS prescription items were dispensed free of charge. I am pleased to say that now more than 85 per cent. of prescription items are dispensed free.
People likely to have the greatest difficulty in paying for prescription charges—for example children under 16, people over 60 and those on low income—get their prescriptions free. Those arrangements ensure that no one need be deterred from obtaining necessary medication for financial reasons.
Equally, cystic fibrosis sufferers on mean-tested benefits, such as income support, also receive free prescriptions while others may get full help under the NHS low income scheme. For those not entitled to free prescriptions, prescription pre-payment certificates offer real savings for anyone who needs more than five prescription items in four months or 14 items in 12 months.
The hon. Gentleman referred to what I believe he called the financial plight facing sufferers from cystic fibrosis who now, happily, live on to adulthood. Prescription pre-payment certificates mean that no one has to pay more than £84.60 for 12 months for as many prescriptions as are needed. We recognise that, because of the difficulty some people might have in finding that amount as a lump sum, we also make available pre-payment certificates for £30.80 for four months.
It is also the case that on 25 February, the Government announced the lowest prescription charge increase for 20 years. The charge for a single prescription will rise by only lop from £5.80 to £5.90 from 1 April 1999. That represents a cash increase of 1.72 per cent., which actually means that prescription charges will fall in real terms. That small increase will protect the contribution that charges make to NHS income and help to maintain the valuable services provided to patients.
In Britain, the prescription charge is an important contribution towards the cost of medication, to be paid only by those who can afford to do so. It is not, and never has been, directly related either to the particular item prescribed or to the actual cost to the NHS of dispensing it.
I draw hon. Members' attention to the comprehensive publicity campaign about the introduction of "point of dispensing" checks. That campaign started on 15 March and will run for three weeks with press and poster advertising. It is being backed up by a nationwide, free telephone advice line to help patients unsure about their exemption and to advise practitioners and staff.
I refer to that only to reassure hon. Members that patients will not go without medication as a result. Those who do not show evidence of exemption from prescription charges will still have their medicines dispensed, but their prescription forms will be marked to aid subsequent checking.
The Government applaud the invaluable work of the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, which continues to campaign on behalf of its members, carers and families with children who suffer from the condition. Through its efforts, it has succeeded in educating both Government and the general public of the difficulties experienced by sufferers from cystic fibrosis. That is why my Department has funded, and continues to fund, several projects that support its work—the cystic fibrosis advocacy project and a user involvement project. It is through initiatives such as the advocacy project that we can increase public awareness and look for ways to help those who suffer from cystic fibrosis.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising an important issue in what I hope has been a useful and informative debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Eleven o'clock